beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Criminal facts
[2017 Highest 3261]
1. On August 14, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the “D shooting range” on the front side of the “D shooting range” located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, on the ground that the Defendant was able to repair the victim E (22 years of age) and the victim F (22 years of age) on his/her own. On his/her hand, he/she sawd the victim E with his/her hand once and her face, once he/she saws the victim E, once he/she saws his/her fthro, and five times of the flab, and assaulted the victims, respectively.
2. 재물 손괴 피고인은 제 1 항 기재 일시장소에서, 제 1 항 기재와 같이 손으로 피해자 F을 때리다가 피해자 F이 손목에 차고 있던 그 소유의 시가 360,000원 상당인 휄 다이버 시계를 주먹으로 쳐서 그 줄이 끊어지게 하여, 시가 불상의 수리비가 들도록 손괴하였다.
3. Fraud;
A. On August 14, 2017, at around 02:10, the Defendant placed an order for alcohol and alcohol, etc. in the “Ising room” operated by the victim H in Seongdong-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, as if he would normally pay the drinking value.
However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the drinking value.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was delivered to the victim with an alcoholic beverage and an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 300,000 at the market price.
B. On August 14, 2017, around 04:10, the Defendant ordered the alcohol, etc. at “Ling room” operated by the victim K in the Sung-gu J and the second floor of Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si, and the victim K, as if the Defendant would normally pay the alcohol value.
However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the drinking value.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received a delivery of 290,000 won at the market price from the injured party.
[2017 Highest 3743]
1. Fraud;
A. On October 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00, the “O cafeteria” operated by the Victim N in the Chungcheongnam-gun M, Chungcheongnam-gun, and (b) did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if ordering food. As such, the Defendant was committed as if he were to pay the price.