Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On July 21, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) in the Changwon District Court’s Msan Branch branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 3, 2017.

[Criminal facts] On May 4, 2017, around 20:00, the Defendant ordered the two shares as if they would normally pay the price at the main point of the operation of the Gu B and the victim C, Chang-gu, Chang-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and the victim C, and ordered the two shares.

However, the defendant did not have money and did not have any other means of payment, so even if he received alcohol from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the drinking value.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and was provided with 15 years Bluece 1 Byung, a total of 270,000 won of the market price from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Results of inquiries about the person's face pictures, receipts, response to requests for appraisal, convict DNA personal information;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry of criminal history, report on investigation (final judgment after the crime in this case), and application of statutes of the judgment text;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment;

1. Subsequent to Article 37 of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has a record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and since the execution of imprisonment was completed, the instant crime was committed.

It is not good that the method of committing the instant crime, which had escaped from a place where it was committed after having a crypted.

Until now, damage has not been restored.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime.

It is necessary to consider equity in cases where a judgment was rendered concurrently with a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief).

In addition, the age, sex, and the details and circumstances of the instant crime.