Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Although the Defendant was unable to pay gasoline in a car, even if he did not have the intent or ability to pay it, at around 22:00 on October 7, 201, at the D station in the operation of the victim C(34) located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant stated that the Defendant’s employees E of the above D station referred to as “one hundred thousand won of gasoline to be harmful to 100,000 won” on the FMW X5 vehicle operated by the Defendant to E of the above C station, and then the victim of the gas station as the end of the gas station “I would be removed if he was suffering from the wall.” The Defendant stated that “I would go to be removed from the wall. I will go to the same H and I will go to the account transfer immediately after leaving the victim as a collateral, and then did not forward the above D station expenses to the victim.”

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 100,000 of the oil cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of C;

1. Application of each statute to written opinions;

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

1. As to the assertion that the Defendant had intent and ability to repay KRW 100,000 of the gas station cost of this case, which was determined as to the Defendant’s assertion of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant did not confession to the crime by deception. As such, in light of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc. before and after the crime of this case, the amount of KRW 100,000 of the gas station cost of this case is small, and even if the Defendant notified the victim of the phone number of the mother’s name he/she used at the time or was in charge of his/her loss, the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, i.e., the lapse of three months from the time of the complaint of this case (round January 7, 2012).