Punishment of the accused shall be 500,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Seoul Northern District Court on March 25, 2010 and eight months at the Seoul Central District Court on August 8, 2013 for violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). Each of the above judgments became final and conclusive around that time.

On December 19, 2009, the Defendant conspired with B, in collusion with the victim D, working as an employee by the victim D, located in the second underground floor of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, on December 19, 2009, ordered alcohol and alcohol to the victim as if he were to pay the drinking value even if he did not have the intent or ability to pay the drinking value, and was provided by the victim as if he did so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police investigation protocol to B, protocol of the police statement to F concerning the investigation of suspect, receipt, each judgment, and protocol of the conet case to the Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the instant crime, the Defendant, on September 28, 2009, did not drinking and did not pay the drinking value. Upon a summary indictment of a fine of KRW 500,000,000, the Defendant filed a request for formal trial. Upon the confession of the crime in the first instance trial, the Defendant appealed the previous attitude and reversed the previous attitude, and denied the crime to B, and received the judgment of dismissal by denying the criminal liability. In this case, considering the fact that the Defendant was responsible for his act and did not divided his act into two parts, even if he did not take into account the equity in the case where the judgment was rendered, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been subject to a fine under the summary order even if he considered the equity in the case where the judgment was rendered.