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

At around 22:00 on February 19, 2018, the Defendant stated that the victim C operated by the victim C in Chungcheongnam-gun B, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, would settle the payment within a week with the card of the corporation, because there is no sales fund.

However, while the defendant worked in E-art, he was not paid a normal monthly wage by several times, and there was no corporate card available for E-art employees, and there was no intention or ability to repay within a week due to no corporate card available for E-art employees.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, did not pay the victim the amount of KRW 280,00 on February 19, 2018, KRW 405,00 on February 21, 2018, KRW 135,00 on February 26, 2018, KRW 765,00 on March 1, 2018, KRW 460,00 on March 3, 2018, and KRW 2,045,00 on a total amount of KRW 2,00 on an alcoholic beverage and alcohol amount of KRW 2,00 on the part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A report on investigation (the sequence 6 of evidence list);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for verification;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines [in the event that several acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of such acts shall be punished as an inclusive crime in total (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5341, Aug. 22, 2003). The court recognizes the criminal facts charged for substantive concurrent crimes as they are, although the court recognizes the criminal facts charged for a single comprehensive crime, with different legal evaluation only on the number of crimes, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, the court may be punished as an inclusive crime without any changes in the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987). Public prosecutor considers each act of the facts charged in this case as concurrent crimes.