The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant thought at the time of the instant case that he would lend taxi expenses to the victim, but did not pay taxi expenses to the victim and the police on the wind that the police called out, so it does not constitute an act of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act due to a non-fluence lane.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Each Defendant, including E’s written evidence, duly adopted and examined at the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of fact, stated that the entire facts charged is recognized in the court of first instance.

On September 29, 2016, the following facts are found as follows: ① on September 29, 2016, the Defendant used a taxi for the victim’s driving to D’s hotel located in the same Gu (Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul) from Gangnam-gu, to D’s hotel; ② the Defendant issued four card to the victim for approval, but the Defendant refused or suspended all of the payment; ③ the victim was demanding the Defendant to pay the taxi fee in cash; ③ the victim did not demand the Defendant to pay the taxi fee in cash, and the victim reported the victim at the time and place stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and eventually reported the victim to the police, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant did not pay the victim 9,00 won to the victim without good cause; even if the Defendant did not actually lend the expenses from the hotel loan that the Defendant had impliedly paid to the victim, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant did not actually pay the expenses to the victim.

Therefore, the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable.