Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On December 8, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night groups, deadly weapons, etc.), etc. in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court (at night) on the grounds of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night groups, deadly weapons, etc.), and on April 13, 2006, the period of the suspended sentence expired on September 14, 2006 by being sentenced to a maximum of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on April 13, 2006.

On March 12, 2013, at around 16:05, the Defendant, at the “D” clothing store operated by the victim C in Pyeongtaek-si B, made 682,00 won of the market price, such as as as if he were to kill the goods to the employee E, and made it to the same F, etc., and made it available to the store outside the store. The Defendant, despite the absence of the intent or ability to pay the price, had the cash card, which does not have been partially settled to the above E, sent it to the said E so that it would make it difficult to pay the price by providing it to the said E, and would make it known the phone number and name of the interphone and make it known to him of the price during the store.

In the end, the Defendant received the property by deceiving the victim, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect concerning F by the prosecution;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the statutes on copies of the receipt of damaged articles;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order has a history of having been punished several times due to fraud, etc., and the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period is highly likely to be criticized. However, the amount of damage to the instant crime is not significant, and is with the victim.