When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant entered the 'C' located in Suwon-si B at around 00:45 on May 13, 2015, and issued an order for food, if he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount, and if he/she did not pay the amount, he/she would have to pay the food, he/she would be "H" in the written indictment of the victim who is an employee, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error and correct it ex officio.

The victim believed that this was true by deceiving B, who received 12,000 won or more of the market price, and acquired financial benefits without paying the price after taking the orders of 2,000 won of the market price.

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant, “2015 High 3131, the Defendant, within the scope of “F of the first floor E in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Seoul High 2015,” was engaged in as if he would pay the price to the Victim G, and ordered food, but the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price.

Nevertheless, the defendant was provided with 6,000 won by the injured party.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 High 3130"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Interim invoice;

1. Macer’s photograph "2015 Macro 3131";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Invoice;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to listen to telephone statements);

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In light of the circumstances that the Defendant was punished for the same offense for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same offense during the period of probation, and that he did not make efforts to recover damage, etc., the circumstances that are favorable to all of the Defendant’s confessions and reflects, and the amount of damage is relatively minor are considered.