However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. On June 1, 2014, around 11:50 on June 1, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as if he would pay the amount of food to the victim, and as if he would have paid the amount of food.

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if the defendant was supplied food because there was no money outside 6,000 won.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was provided with 2-person portion of the fireworks in the sum equivalent to 73,000 won in the market value from the victim’s seat and 1 disease in the subject matter.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving others.

2. The criminal suspect interference with business caused the victim D to demand the food value at the above date, time, place, and so far, the victim F’s employee F’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each statute of the D and F

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. To take into account the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that there is no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment, and the fact that a mistake is recognized, under the circumstances unfavorable to many persons with the same criminal records as the reasons for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the