On September 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud in the Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s Vice Branch, and on April 18, 2016, the Defendant committed 27 criminal records of fraud, including the termination of the execution of the sentence at the Gansung prison on April 18, 2016.

around 02:00 on April 20, 2016, the Defendant showed the same attitude to pay the drinking value in the "D main points" located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, and ordered the victim E to provide alcohol, alcohol, and so on.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the drinking value to the victim.

The Defendant was provided by the injured party with alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 245,00,00, including 1 sick, 1 ton, 1 ton, 1 ton ton, and 1 ton ton ton ton.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Receipts:

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, personal identification and confinement status, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a report on investigation (Attachment to judgment);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Article 35] General Fraud (a period of less than KRW 100 million) [a person with special aggravated punishment] Dong type repeated crime [a person with special aggravated punishment] [a person with multiple criminal records repeatedly committing a crime of non-exclusive crime like this case, and thereby, a number of criminal records have been history for criminal punishment, the fact that it is a crime within the period of repeated crime, and the fact that damage has not been recovered.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant misleads the defendant, and that the amount of fraud of the crime of this case is not significant, etc. are favorable to the defendant, and the punishment is determined as above by exceeding the lower limit of the recommended punishment by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship