When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On April 6, 2017, at the main points operated by the victim C in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, where the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the price, and was ordered to pay the price to the victim as if the Defendant would pay the price. In other words, the Defendant was provided with 11 C and 2 Abreju equivalent to the total market price of 64,00 won at the tin.

After all, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first trial record;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The assertion and determination of the Defendant under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not constitute a crime of fraud, since he had the intent and ability to pay the drinking value because he had a remaining card in excess of the drinking value at the time and place of the crime.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the witness C’s legal statement, investigation report (which means one right 4-5 pages of evidence record), and photograph (which means one right 6-8 pages of evidence record), ① the circumstance that there was no money or any remaining card that the Defendant had at the time of arrest immediately after the date of the crime (the card 1 that the Defendant possessed was insufficient to approve the drinking value, and there was no evidence that the Defendant possessed the remaining card as alleged by the Defendant at the time of committing the crime), ② the circumstance that the Defendant did not have any attitude to lower the drinking value, ② the circumstance that the Defendant was not at all, and ③ the circumstance that the Defendant was not able to accept the Defendant’s assertion in full view of these circumstances.