The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated to the effect that the police officer called to the scene of the case with C and C, a taxi driver, did not intend to pay the taxi fare to the defendant, and the defendant also lost the wall.

The defense that the taxi driver no longer has made a statement to the effect that he/she did not intend to pay the taxi fee because he/she merely did not pay the taxi fee without any combination of circumstances, and thus, he/she may be found guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, the court below rejected the statement in the investigative agency of the victim, etc. and acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the victim's statement in the court of original instance, etc.

2. Determination

A. On April 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 04:50 on April 9, 2013, and even though there was no intent or ability to pay taxi charges on the street in front of the Seocheonnam-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul; and (b) did not pay 13,90 won of taxi charges to the victim C and did not pay 13,90 won of taxi charges to the victim’s property gains.

B. According to the statement at each court of the original instance by C and F, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant lost the wall at the alcohol house prior to boarding a taxi, and that the Defendant continued to find the wallet after having arrived at the destination, and that the Defendant was aware that he did not pay taxi expenses but did not leave the taxi at the destination after having arrived at the destination. Therefore, there is a possibility of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have any intention to deception or defraud the taxi, and that the written statement by C alone did not intend to pay the taxi expenses at the time of leaving the taxi.