When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On November 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to fraud and interference with business at a means of flooding, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 2, 2015.

1. On May 15, 2016, at the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Seoul on May 17:30, 2016, the Defendant interfered with his/her duties left a large amount of hydrogen on his/her own while drinking alcohol, and he/she was seated on the table. The Defendant is friendship with the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency.

If a report is filed, the statement that will not be closed;

“Around two hours by force, the victim’s restaurant business was interfered with by force in a way that she was crypted, and had the customers outside the crypted, and the other customers were unable to enter the crypted.

2. The Defendant, on the above date, at the above place, took the attitude that the Defendant would have been able to pay the amount to the victim, ordered 1 mari and 2 wals.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if he was provided with food and alcoholic beverages from the damaged person.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received food and alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 15,00,000 in total, 1 math and 3,000 won in the market value from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Written statements of D;

1. Photographs and receipt of the scene of crime;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: In response to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation report (the previous judgment and the personal confinement status of the defendant's office) [the defendant and his defense counsel had the intent to pay money in the house at any time, regardless of time due to the defendant's house close to restaurant, and even if not, they did not intend to obtain money by deception in the crime of this case, since they were engaged in the paper restaurant and paid the food value on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant.