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

1. On April 9, 2017, the Defendant was provided with food and beverage at a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, as of April 17, 2017, but did not have the intent or ability to pay the price, the Defendant was given an attitude that the Defendant would normally pay the price to the victim. The Defendant ordered food and beverage, etc., and the Defendant was provided with one share of 38,000 won in total and two share of the market price from the victim.

2. Around April 18:10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) attempted to pay the food cost at the places specified in the foregoing paragraph (1); (b) intended to demand the victim to pay the food cost from the victim specified in the foregoing paragraph (1), and (c) expressed the victim’s “I am unable to do so”; and (d) expressed the victim’s husband E with a large voice “I am ra as I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on receipts, field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is that even though the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, repeated the crime of this case which interfered with the conduct of pre-service and business, and that it is not agreed with the victims, it is disadvantageous.

However, the defendant is given medical treatment due to the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case against the mistake, the fact that there is no record of punishment heavier than a fine, and the symptoms of alcohol dependence.