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

around 01:00 on December 22, 2012, the Defendant, “2013 Highest 215,” which was operated by the Victim C in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, had no intention or ability to pay the alcohol value, etc., was done as if the Defendant would pay the price to the victim, and the Defendant ordered the alcohol and the scam, which was obtained from the victim with the alcohol and the 100,000 won, including 10,000 won, such as 10,000 won, and 2,000,000 won, from the victim.

around 02:00 on January 26, 2013, the Defendant issued an order as if he would pay the amount in spite of the absence of the intent or ability to pay the amount in the “G” point operated by the Victim F in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and then received the payment of alcohol and alcohol equivalent to the total market value of KRW 309,000 from the victim.

around 00:30 on March 16, 2013, the Defendant ordered one beer and one beer and one beer, as if he were to pay the price to the victim I, even though he did not have any intent or economic ability to pay the price in Suwon-si H heading in Suwon-do, Suwon-do. However, the Defendant ordered the victim I to pay the price, and he received it from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained a total of 24,00 won property benefit.

Summary of Evidence

"2013 Highest 215"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements and receipts of C: "2013 Highest 424";

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigative report (general), and Statement of Police Statements concerning F "2013 Highest 1059";

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the I Statement;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes under relevant Articles 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. The defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, including the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine several times for the same kind of crime, and is disadvantageous to the defendant.