A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On September 14, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury by robbery at the Suwon District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the two prisons of the North Korean defectors on October 24, 2010. On November 25, 2013, the Suwon District Court sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud and interference with business, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 3, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Around 18:50 on July 31, 2013, the Defendant issued an order for alcohol and alcohol equivalent to KRW 580,000,00, both weeks, from the “Eju store managed by the victim D” operated by the victim D in Paju-si, Paju-si.

However, the fact did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the victim received the alcohol and the communication from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was provided with alcoholic beverage and alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 580,00 from the victim’s seat.

2. Around 03:10 on August 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of the said “E station”, the Defendant: (b) at the entrance of the said “E station, caused an empty beer’s disease at the entrance of the entrance, on the ground that the victim does not open the door; and (c) damaged the entrance door door door door of the city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. On-site photographs and receipts;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, etc. and investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant statutory provisions Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

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

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, among concurrent offenders, the determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act was in a state of mental or physical disability due to the alcohol proof at the time of the instant crime.

According to the examined evidence, the defendant is deemed to have a drinking fact at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant has the ability or will to discern things due to alcohol or alcohol existence.