A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 10, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on February 15, 2017.

[2017 Highest 2292] On July 24, 2017, the Defendant ordered food and alcohol equivalent to KRW 28,500,00, in total at the market price of swine, water coolings, and small liquor 1 bottles, and received delivery from the injured party. The Defendant ordered food and alcohol equivalent to KRW 28,50,00,00, in total, in spite of the absence of the intent or ability to pay the price, even if he/she received an order for food and alcohol.

[2017 Highest 3655] On November 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the “H restaurant” of the victim G operation in Sinh City F on November 25, 2017, the Defendant was able to pay the meal cost due to the lack of money in water; and (b) ordered the victim to provide alcohol and alcohol; (c) the Defendant was provided with 25,000 fchis and kimchi, the sum of market prices of which is equivalent to 25,000 won.

[2018 Highest 185]

1. On June 21, 2017, at around 22:15, Defendant and I ordered food, etc. in the “K cafeteria” located in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City of Dong-gu, and in fact, even if food, etc. was provided, the Defendant and I ordered food, etc. as if they were to pay the price to L, who is the owner of the above restaurant, even though having no intent or ability to pay the price.

Ultimately, the Defendant, in collusion with I, by deceiving the victim as above, provided the victim with 3 lux, 3 lux, 3 lux, 1 lux, and 1 lux in the bones of bones equivalent to the sum of 31,000 won from the victim.

2. On July 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00, the “O restaurant” operated by the Victim N in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M; and (b) was committed as if the Defendant would normally pay the amount of meals to the victim, although there was no money in water and there was no occupation and import, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount of meals normally; and (c) the Defendant would have paid the amount of meals to the victim as if he would normally pay the amount of meal.