[criminal history] On March 24, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Gwangju District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Gwangju Prison on September 17, 2017.

[2] On October 23, 2017, around October 23, 2017, the Defendant issued an order for alcohol, alcohol, etc. to the victim, even though the victim D operated by the victim D on the second floor of Busan Metropolitan City Office Officetel, and even if the victim D did not have money and received alcohol, alcohol, etc. due to the lack of money, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the victim the price, and ordered the victim to pay the price properly.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received an amount equivalent to KRW 345,00,00 in total from the victim of beer and beer, KRW 205,00; (c) employee volunteer fee of KRW 105,00; and (d) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of KRW 35,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. The alcohol value receipt, investigation report (verification, etc. of damaged goods), and on-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry of criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on criminal investigation reports (verification of details of confinement of suspects);

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommendation] The ground for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Article 35] In general fraud [the person subject to special aggravated punishment] / [the amount of damage in this case is relatively small or medium, the defendant committed the crime in this case again in the absence of a sentence for the same kind of crime and one month, and there are many records of the same crime in addition to the criminal records of the repeated crime in the judgment, and the damage was not paid. In light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime in this case, it is necessary to punish the defendant as a sentence.

However, in determining the sentence, it is somewhat somewhat smaller than the lower limit of the recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the fact that the defendant makes a confession and reflects, the amount of damage is a relatively small amount, and the reasons for the sentencing indicated in this case.