If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant, without the intent or ability to pay the drinking value, entered two parallels from the first floor of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City C-A-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-S-Sa-S

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of E;

1. Entry of the written arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on entry of receipts;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant was provided with alcoholic beverage and alcohol according to the implied concurrence that the alcohol value is on credit, and there was no deception of the victim as if he would pay the alcohol value.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Defendant’s failure to pay the alcohol value on the day of the instant case and thus, immediately reported 112, etc. (see, e.g., a letter of arrest of a flagrant offender No. 4 of the investigation record), etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had impliedly agreed to the effect that the Defendant’s injury to the alcohol value with the victim on credit. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion by defense counsel