If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

1. On November 3, 2017, the Defendant visited the main points of “D” operated by the victim C of the second underground floor in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to pay the drinking value. Notwithstanding the absence of an intent or ability to pay the drinking value, the Defendant, as if he could be able to pay the drinking value, by deceiving the victim as if he could be able to pay the drinking value, was engaged in property benefits without calculating the drinking value.

2. At around 12:00 on March 9, 2018, the Defendant, despite having no intention or ability to pay the drinking value by visiting the principal place operated by the victim, which is the same place as the above 12:00, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as if he would be able to pay the drinking value, by ordering the victim to provide an alcoholic beverage equivalent to a total of KRW 60,000, such as juju juice juju (10,000), jun juju (20,000), jun juju (30,000 won), and jun ju (30,000 won). After having presented the ewn card under the name of the victim, the Defendant was unable to calculate the drinking value by taking the toilets and escape.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. The list of seizure, the page on which personal information of a suspect is recorded, and the application of the statutes of the page directly prepared by a suspect;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of fines;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is very high to the defendant who was sentenced to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the fact that the defendant again committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to a same crime, and even if he was a repeated crime period (as the punishment was selected, the repeated crime is not severe), and the damage was recovered, etc., taking into account the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant trial, the amount of fine specified in the summary order does not seem to be excessive.