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

1. On May 6, 2016, around 00:40 on May 6, 2016, the Defendant believed to be able to pay the fee to the victim D, who is the owner of a business, without the intent or ability to pay the drinking value, within the drinking house located in “C” located in “C”, and took property benefits equivalent to the same amount by removing the amount equivalent to KRW 63,000 from the price.

2. At around 01:15 on the same day as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant believed that, within the drinking house, the victim G, who is an owner of the business, would be able to pay the drinking value without the intent or ability to pay the drinking value, the Defendant would be able to pay the drinking value. The Defendant took property benefits equivalent to the same amount by removing the amount equivalent to 18,000 won.

3. At around 02:10 on the same day as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant believed that the victim I, who was a taxi engineer, was able to receive the fare even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the taxi fee, after boarding a H taxi in front of the 2nd apartment complex in Pyeongtaek-gu, 143 at a 02:10 on the same day, and 3,300 won at the same parallel distance, was driven by the operation of the 3,300 won, thereby gaining property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of D, G, and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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

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

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.