On November 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to be punished for fraud at the District Court for the Defendant’s District Court on July 18, 2013 and completed the enforcement of the sentence;

1. On August 1, 2013, at the “Eju” operated by the Victim C in Dongducheon-si, 200, around August 1, 2013, a crime against Victim C with the victim: (a) orders the victim to pay the amount even if the victim did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount; (b) orders the victim to be provided with 20 Macju, Macju 3, Macju, Macju 3, Macju; and (c) by which the victim would pay the amount of the amount of the alcohol; and (d) obtain property benefits provided with 300,000 won at the market price from the victim,

2. At around 01:00 on August 2, 2013, the crime against the victim F, “H main points” operated by the victim F in Dongducheon-si G, Dongdu-si, where: (a) even if the victim did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if he/she received an order from the victim, the victim ordered beer 15 illness and beer 1,00,000, as if he/she would pay the alcohol value; and (b) the victim acquired property benefits by being provided from the victim, namely, alcohol and beer 1,50,000,000 won at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. Each simplified receipt;

1. Previous records of judgment: As a result of the search of prisoners, references to criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment to the previous and previous written judgments), copies of judgment No. 2012No2074 (No. 2012No. 2074 (Attachment to the previous and previous written judgments), and copies of judgment No. 2012 High Court Decision No.

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, among the concurrent crimes, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides a defendant with the same criminal history for the same offense. Among them, five times the imprisonment with prison labor has been imposed, and one year has passed since the release of the imprisonment with prison labor even after the same criminal record stated in the judgment.