On November 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to the punishment of larceny, etc. at the Suwon District Court, which was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Suwon Detention House on June 25, 2015.

On November 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) boarded from the taxi platform located in the Eup of Pyeongtaek-si on November 23, 2015, and had the victim C drive a taxi to the off-dong of the city in Ansan-si.

However, there was no intention or ability to pay taxi charges to the victim even if he/she takes a taxi and moves to a destination.

The Defendant did not pay 67,320 won of taxi charges, even though the Defendant had the victim drive a taxi to the father-dong in Ansan-si, the purpose of which is Ansan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired property benefits equivalent to 67,320 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Entry of a receipt for taxi charges;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and a report on investigation (verification of repeated crimes, etc.);

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

1. The scope of recommendation of the reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the aggravated area (one year to two years) (one year and six months) of the aggravated area (special aggravated amount) (one year to two years), the defendant for the same repeated crime committed a repeated crime due to the same crime, during the suspended execution period, and the risk of repeating the crime in light of the living environment, etc. of the defendant is high

Since the sentence is sentenced, the amount of damage is a small amount, and the attitude against the crime of this case is shown, it is necessary to determine the same type as the order in consideration of all the circumstances.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.