beta
Text
The judgment below
All parts, excluding the dismissed part, shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.
Reasons
1. The court below dismissed the public prosecution as to the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, acquitted the charge of fraud, and convicted the Defendant as to the injury and obstruction of business.
However, since only the prosecutor appealed on the guilty part of the judgment below and the acquittal part of the judgment below, and did not appeal all the prosecutor and the defendant, the dismissed part of the judgment below became final and conclusive as it is.
Therefore, only the remainder of the judgment below, excluding the dismissal of public prosecution, is subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the erroneous determination of facts (as to the acquittal part), it can be sufficiently recognized that there was a criminal intent to defraud the accused at the time.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.
3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On April 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 00:10 on April 16, 2016, the G restaurant operated by the victim I in the Government-si F; (b) the Defendant was engaged in the conduct as if he did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if he was provided with alcohol and alcohol from H, an employee, even if he did not have any money; and (c) ordered H to pay the price of the beverage and alcohol; and (d) he received the alcohol and alcohol in the aggregate amount of KRW 30,50,00 from H.
B. The lower court determined as follows, based on the record, that is, the Defendant was operating a J-cafeteria attached to the above “G” restaurant, on the day of the instant case, entered a G restaurant with a person who was not a married but a branch and a staff meeting, and thereafter the Defendant was within his employee H.