beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 2, 2016, the Defendant, “2017 High 1768,” sent the same attitude that he would pay the amount normally at “D Sing shop operated by the Victim C (E. 54 years old)”, and ordered the alcohol and the alcohol.
However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if he received the alcohol and the alcohol from the injured party.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 2 sicks and 5 sicks worth 630,000 won in total from the victim.
Defendant A and E are customers of “Fsing shop” managed by the injured party.
around 00:30 on October 8, 2016, the Defendant and E expressed the same attitude to pay the price normally within the “Fing shop” 204 located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, and ordered alcohol and alcohol.
However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if he received the alcohol and the alcohol from the injured party.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received from the injured party the total sum of KRW 370,00,000 from the injured party, 1 bottled, 1 week, and 10 drinking water.
Summary of Evidence
"2017 High Court 1768"
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. The legal statement of C by the witness, 2017 High Court 1771;
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;
1. Application of statutes on police statements made to H to H;
1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;
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. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the custody of a workhouse (hereinafter “the Defendant and his defense counsel”) / [the Defendant and his defense counsel knew that the Defendant and his defense counsel would give credit to the victim C of the 1768 Incident, and that there was no intention to commit a crime of fraud.
The argument is asserted.
In other words, C is a police officer at the time of the instant case, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court.