A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On June 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud in the Changwon District Court Msan Branch, and completed the execution of the sentence on September 18, 2015.

On September 24, 2015, from around 20:50 to around 01:00 on September 25, 2015, the Defendant ordered the victim E to provide alcohol and alcohol, etc., even if the victim E was provided with alcohol and alcohol from the injured party, the Defendant would be aware that the Defendant would pay the victim with no intent or ability to pay the cost, and ordered the victim to provide alcohol and alcohol.

Defendant deceptioned the victim as above, and then acquired the victim with 1.5 beer and 3 beer, whose total market value is 3.10,000 won from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement protocol of E prepared by the police;

1. Invoice;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (verification of repeated records) statute;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Scope of Recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Article 35] In general fraud [Article 1(100 million won or less)] / [Special Aggravation] The defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more (the defendant is sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud in the Changwon District Court Msan Branch Branch on June 17, 2015 and was sentenced to six months for a repeated crime on September 18, 2015, even though the execution of the sentence was completed, he/she repeated the same crime for six days or more, and the so-called Domina value as at the time of the defendant was calculated as at the time.

On the other hand, it is alleged that the order of alcohol and alcohol was not ordered by the defendant. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant can be found guilty of the facts charged in this case, and the defendant's legal attitude, etc. is considered)