The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On November 25, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of damage to public goods, etc. in the Gwangju District Court Branch on September 21, 2018. On June 25, 2020, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 3, 2020.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 20:30 on May 6, 2020, the Defendant: (a) committed as if the Defendant would normally pay the amount to the victim C, a restaurant operated by the victim C in the Southernnam-gun B; and (b) ordered the victim to drink and food.

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not have cash and did not have any other means to pay the price, so even if he was provided with alcohol and food from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the price.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 위와 같이 피해자를 기망하여 이에 속은 피해자로부터 즉석에서 시가 합계 41,000원 상당의 갈비 2인분과 소주 1병, 공깃밥 1개, 냉면 1개를 제공받고도 그 대금을 지급하지 아니하여 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (verification during the period of repeated crimes), judgment, etc., judgment, previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exempted Criminal Act (it appears that even if the crime of this case was committed simultaneously with the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. recorded in the records of the criminal records on which the judgment became final and conclusive, no sentence heavier than the sentence sentenced for the previous offense in the judgment seems to have been pronounced. Considering such equity, the Defendant