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

"2018 Highest 1480"

1. A special intimidation: (a) around 01:30 on March 27, 2018, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol at the “C” station located in Gwangju Mine-gu B, and had the victim D (the 21-year bit of bit of bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the defendant by using a shouldered beer disease, which is a dangerous object.

"2018 Highest 2747"

2. On April 16, 2018, the Defendant, at the main point of “G” operated by the Victim FF in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the Defendant as if he would pay the said fee to the victim although he did not have the intent or ability to pay the alcohol value; and (b) provided the Defendant with alcohol and alcohol equivalent to the sum of KRW 4.50,000,000, including two illnesss and fruits.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[2018 Highest 1480]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and H [2018 Highest 2747];

1. A written statement;

1. Each investigation report (number 7,9,10,12,13);

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he had the intent and ability to pay the drinking value at the time of the instant case, such as an invoice and a copy of a business report.

On the other hand, it is recognized that the defendant had kept the balance exceeding the principal of this case to the account linked to the physical card used at the time of this case.

However, fraud is established not only when there is no ability to pay the price, but also when there is no intention to pay.

According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant was repeatedly confirmed by the investigative agency about the principal payment during the investigation process.

In addition, even though the defendant had given sufficient time to the trial process of this case after the occurrence of this case, the above assertion was not paid.

In addition, the defendant had previously avoided payment at the same place of week, and the same kind.