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

On January 17, 2003, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Incheon District Court on May 28, 2004 and imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Daejeon District Court on April 12, 2005 and imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Daejeon District Court on October 12, 2007 at the same court on October 12, 2007, and imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime for 4 months from the Jeonju District Court on April 9, 2009 and for 6 months from the Jeonju District Court on December 21, 2012, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Daejeon District Court on December 21, 2012.

1. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant habitually committed an act as if he had no intent and ability to pay the drinking value by entering the victim D’s D’s 'Eca shop’, which is located at the Government-Si, around 02:00 on May 16, 2016, and received delivery from the injured party of alcoholic beverages, etc. a total of KRW 110,000,00 of alcoholic beverages, etc., on the basis of the fact that he could pay for it.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving the victim habitually.

2. The Defendant, in response to the withdrawal, requested several times from the injured party to leave the “E coffee shop” at the time, place, and at the same time, but did not comply therewith and did not comply with the demand of the injured party to leave the victim without good cause until the police officer dispatched by the victim’s report from 06:05 on the same day arrives.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report of investigation (as for confirmation of the balance of a suspect's physical card - photograph of card, face-to-face identification of the balance of card, one inquiry of the balance, judgment of the same case, and a copy of summary order attached thereto);

1. Habitualness of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime in the judgment, the number of crimes, and the same type of crime committed by the same method are repeated several times;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 351 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Habitual fraud) with respect to the facts of the crime, Article 319(2) and 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of refusal to leave), and each of the imprisonment options.