【The Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court on May 4, 2016, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the prison on January 8, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On January 30, 2017, at around 02:50 on January 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed as if he/she would normally pay the alcohol value to the victim E, the owner of the relevant place, and (b) demanded the Defendant to place an order for alcohol and alcohol and to change female workers engaged in entertainment (hereinafter “domination”).

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the drinking value due to the lack of money.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) did not pay the price for entertainment entertainment services equivalent to KRW 240,000; and (c) did not pay the price for entertainment services equivalent to KRW 40,000,000; and (c) obtained property benefits equivalent to KRW 280,000,000.

2. The Defendant damaged the property in such a way that the victim mentioned in the above paragraph 1 at the date, time, and at the place mentioned in the above paragraph 1, urges the victim to calculate the drinking value, and is closely pushed down the slid door owned by the victim, which was located there, and several times above, the Defendant damaged the property in such a way that there is no quith from the door, so that the door is broken off, and the door is cut off, and that there is no quith from the door side part of the wall.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Invoice (simplified receipts), each photograph (number 4, 17), and estimate;

1. Previous conviction in the judgment: The text of the judgment (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Ma185, etc., 2016No. 651, 2016No. 651, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13682), the personal accommodation status, criminal history inquiry [only the defendant has the wheels of unsatisfying, but there is no problem in operating if it is placed again, and it did not damage the satisfy.

one argument, above.