Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On January 13, 2017, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months was imposed on January 13, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 19 of the same year.

1. From August 4, 2017, the Defendants jointly committed the crime, around 15:50 on August 4, 2017, ordered alcohol and food as if they were to pay the price at the F cafeteria operated by the victim E in Gwangju Northern-gu.

However, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if they were provided with alcohol and food due to the lack of money at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim as above and received a total of 34,000 won and food supply from the injured party.

2. On July 22, 2017, Defendant B ordered the payment of the price at the I cafeteria operated by the Victim H in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju around 19:00.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price even if he was provided with alcoholic beverages and food due to the lack of money held at the time.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and was provided with alcohol and food equivalent to 11,000 won in total from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against the Defendants

1. Each statement prepared by the victims;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on entry of receipts;

1. Defendants of the pertinent legal provisions and the choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Defendant B who selected a fine: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; and the choice of a fine

1. The first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act for concurrent crimes (defendant B): Provided, That the first sentence of Article 37 (1);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendant B), the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, each of the Defendants’ detention in a workhouse

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the Defendants) lies in a criminal record exceeding 20 times in total, including the three identical criminal records.

Defendant .