The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud, since he/she attempted to pay the taxi fee through his/her father after he/she arrived at the house that he/she operated.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is not definite intention but dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008); 1) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below; 2) the Defendant did not possess cash at the time of boarding a taxi; 3) the Defendant did not request the father of the Defendant to pay the taxi charges in advance; 3) the Defendant did not pay the taxi charges in advance; and 4) the Defendant did not pay the taxi charges in advance.

Recognized.

B. Since the Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, has the unique area of the first instance judgment as to the determination of sentencing, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).