If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

[2013 High Court Decision 2557] On May 1, 2013, the Defendant ordered the owner of the vessel and the owner of the vessel, as if the Defendant were to pay the price at the D cafeteria operated by the victim C located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and ordered the owner of the vessel to pay the price.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay food values.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim the amount equivalent to KRW 14,00,00, a total of 14,000, 1400, 14,000, 1, 1,000, 1,000, 1,000, 3,000.

[2013 High Court Decision 2558] On June 11, 2013, the Defendant ordered food equivalent to KRW 34,000,00,00, to be provided by the victim F in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Seoul, to the victim F, a main point of “G” operated by the victim F, who is located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, to pay the food value, notwithstanding the absence of the intent and ability to pay the food value, the Defendant ordered the victim to be provided with food equivalent to the sum of KRW 34,00,00, 34,000.

Summary of Evidence

[2013 High Court Decision 2557]

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A receipt [2013 fixed-term2558]

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act as to the facts constituting the crime;

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;