A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 15, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016.

On April 22, 2013, the defendant filed a complaint with the staff of the prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the government branch office of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office which is located in

The complaint was the content that "from November 22, 2012 to the 23th day of the same month, after being sprinked from K and L at the inspony coffee shop near the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, it was the N office in the Ilyang-si M and the Pelel in the O in Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, was detained, and was detained, and the victim was subjected to approximately 8 weeks of treatment, resulting in a punishment for K and L.

However, there was no fact that the defendant was injured by confinement and assault from K or L.

As a result, the defendant had K and L with the aim of having them receive criminal punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect for the police against K or L;

1. Each police statement made by the defendant and Q Q;

1. A complaint;

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal history and investigation reports (Attachment of judgment);

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act mitigated by law;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the crime without reason for sentencing Article 39(1) is highly likely to cause unnecessary human resources waste by a criminal justice agency and cause serious pain to the victim and the victim, and to lead to the exercise of a wrong state penal authority, which requires strict punishment.

Furthermore, the fact that the defendant has been punished several times due to fraud, etc. is the factor of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant is attempting to commit the crime of this case in this court.