beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the part remaining 580,000 won, excluding the first 150,000 won out of the total amount of 730,000 won, which was settled four times from the "J" through a stolen-related card by the defendant, shall not be held liable for this part, since the defendant was aware that he/she was aware of the defendant, and he/she was aware of that part, and the defendant shall not be held liable for this part.
In addition, the Defendant was under the state of mental disability by drinking at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, and the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of attending lectures) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, it is not ordinary for the defendant to pay the drinking value by dividing it into four occasions at the court of Justice, but around 00:49 on the same day as the intermediate payment of the above four times, and around 00:51 on the same day, the defendant directly presented an accident card to his employees at the convenience point (see, e.g., the evidence record No. 121 and the photographs of 121). The defendant calculated the drinking value at the court of Justice, and made three times or three payments at the entertainment tavern “M”, and the witness I at the court of this case stated that the defendant directly signed the drinking value or had the employees sign the drinking value, and made a statement that there is credibility in this part of the statement. Thus, the court below's conviction of this part of the charges is justified.
B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is found that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, but it does not seem that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.
(c).