On June 18, 2014, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Southern District Court to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, and completed the execution of the sentence on December 23, 2014 in the Ansan Prison.

1. Fraud;

A. On February 2, 2015, at the “E” point operated by the victim D in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 2, 2015, the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the liquor price, etc. at the time, ordered the victim to act as if he would pay the liquor price, etc. at the time.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was provided with alcohol and alcohol equivalent to KRW 20,500 at the market price in the same place.

B. On February 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:39, at the place of the foregoing paragraph (a); (b) even if there was no intent or ability to pay the liquor price, etc. at the time, the Defendant acted with the victim D as if he were to pay the liquor price, etc.; and (c) ordered alcohol and alcohol.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was provided with alcohol and alcohol equivalent to the market price of 31,000 won in the same place.

C. On February 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:06, at the place of the foregoing paragraph (a); (b) even if there was no intent or ability to pay alcoholic beverage payments, etc. at the time, the Defendant ordered the victim D to act as if he were to pay alcoholic beverage payments, etc.; and (c) ordered the Defendant to fill a

After all, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim, and was issued by the victim the victim one disease of the amount equivalent to 3,000 won at the market price in the same place.

On February 21, 2015, at around 01:24, the Defendant boarded G taxi operated by the victim F at the distance prior to the Guro-gu Seoul Digital 31-gil 86, Guro-gu, Seoul, the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the taxi fee, was acting as if the victim would pay the taxi fee properly, and operated the taxi by up to 05:20 on the same day.

Ultimately, the Defendant is as above.