A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on March 9, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence at the original prison on November 9, 2016.

On January 30, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Victim K operation at the “L” station in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, to the Defendant as if the Defendant would normally pay the food cost.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any special property or income, and there was no money or means of payment, so even if he received food from the injured party such as alcohol and alcohol, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the normal price.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and received food, such as drinking and drinking, equivalent to the sum of KRW 400,000, from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Receipts:

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry into criminal history, reporting of investigation (prior convictions, etc. of suspects, repeated crimes), and application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Article 35] In light of the following: (a) the aggravated area of punishment (one year to two years and six months) [Special Aggravation] of the same type repeated crime [the defendant] has the history of having been punished for the same kind of crime several times before; (b) the defendant committed the instant crime within the period of repeated crime for the same kind of crime; and (c) the victim has not recovered from damage, it is necessary to make a strict punishment corresponding thereto.

However, considering the fact that the amount of damage is minor, the fact that the defendant separates his mistake, etc. in favor of the defendant, the court ordered the defendant to be exempted from the scope of the recommended punishment by taking into account all factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime.