Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Since there is no property or fixed income in September 2012, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the price even if he drinks in entertainment tavern and receives a service from an entertainment receptionist.

1. On September 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around September 7, 2012, at the E main point of the operation of the victim D (C hotel) of the Busan Suwon-gu B and the 1st underground floor (C hotel) around September 7, 2012; (b) ordered the alcohol as if he would pay the drinking value; and (c) the Defendant received the services from the victim, 200,000 won in total, from the victim, and obtained the services from the victim.

2. Around September 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around September 18, 2012, at the above main point, received the services from the victim in the same manner equivalent to the total market value of KRW 900,000,000 from the victim; and (b) obtained the said services by deception.

3. Around October 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around October 9, 2012, at the above main point, received the two-way service from the victim in the same manner at a total of KRW 500,000,000 from the victim; and (b) obtained the service from the said victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant in this court;

1. Statement of statement on D prepared by the police;

1. Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes stated in each copy of account statement (Evidence No. 11, 12 pages);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order shall be determined as the same as the order, taking into consideration the fact that the defendant, on June 4, 2015, after the institution of the instant case, has been smoothly agreed with the victim.