The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. On February 23, 2017, the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant asserted the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the statement of reasons for appeal. On March 21, 2017, the Defendant’s national defense counsel selected after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal against the Defendant, added unfair claims for sentencing on March 21, 2017.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing is unfair can not be a legitimate ground for appeal because it is newly asserted after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal against the defendant.

However, as examined below, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio, and the argument about sentencing is considered as a reason to newly determine the sentence in the trial.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant by recognizing the criminal intent by deception even though the defendant did not pay food value with the intention of not paying it, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.

On February 23, 2017, the defendant alleged misunderstanding of the legal principles in the reasoning of appeal, but it is the purport of misunderstanding that there is no intention to commit fraud, and the defendant withdrawn such assertion on the second trial date.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to the results of the examination of evidence by the party, the defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended execution for a reason of obstructing the performance of official duties in the Incheon District Court's Branch on May 12, 2016, and on December 12, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 12, 2016.

Therefore, since the crime of the judgment of the court below and the above crime of the court below against the defendant for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes in relation to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment for the crime of the court below shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity in the case where they are judged at the same time pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial of this court, and this is examined.

3. The defendant.