Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The Defendant, around 03:00 on February 15, 2018, 100, on the roads near the National Bank of Korea located in the Nam-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul National Bank”), 100,000,000 won per week by boarding the victim B (48 Do) taxi in a normal manner, and driving as if he would normally pay the cab fee, and the Defendant would pay the victim the 10,000 won per week to the destination located in the Manan

A false statement was made.

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the fare even if he was provided with taxi operation service from the injured party because there was no means to pay the fare, such as cash or credit card.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, failed to pay KRW 100,000 to the bus stops located in the Mandong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si on the same day by having the victim wear the Defendant in the above taxi on the same day and let the Defendant operate the bus stops on the same day. Thus, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the above amount by failing to pay KRW 100,000.

In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to B

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The facts that confessions and reflects the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant’s compensation for the amount of damage to the victim after the indictment of this case was instituted, the Defendant’s criminal facts, which are different from the criminal facts he/she was sentenced to a punishment on January 15, 2013, are not deemed to have continuously and repeatedly committed the same kind of crime as the instant criminal, and the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for the instant criminal act, and means of the instant criminal act.