A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 3, 2017, the Defendant entered a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C(49 years of age, n) in the Geum-gu, Busan, and ordered soup 3711 of 2017 to make soup and make soup, etc. as if he was provided with food to the victim and would pay food value after eating.

However, in fact, the defendant was not in possession of cash or credit card which can pay food values, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount even if he was supplied food from the victim with no occupation or income.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 39,000 won in total from the damaged party, souping soup, making soup, brying, and drinking water 2 bottles.

"2017 Highest 3979"

1. On June 17, 2017, around 13:35, the Defendant was provided with food equivalent to KRW 32,500,00 from the person who believed the Defendant, even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the price in the restaurant for the management of the victim F in the Geum-gu, Busan.

2. On June 18, 2017, around 16:00, the Defendant was provided with food equivalent to KRW 52,000 from the person who believed the Defendant, even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the price in the restaurant operated by the Victim H in the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government G, as if he/she would pay the price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to C, F, and H;

1. Application of each receipt, food photographing statute;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Each of the crimes of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the suspended sentence, is a good thing in consideration of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was imprudented in three times as above; and (b) the recovery of damage was not proper.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant and is a living penalty and the amount of damage is relatively relatively.