A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 1, 2018, around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) instead of having the intent or ability to pay the price in the “main store” operated by the victim D in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju-gu; (b) by deceiving the victim; and (c) was issued to the victim with a beer amounting to KRW 100,00 in total at the market price from the place of the damage to the victim; and (d) the Defendant was issued with beer KRW 100,00 in total at the market price.

2. Around 01:51 on June 2, 2018, the Defendant obstructed a police officer’s legitimate execution of duties regarding the handling of a report case by a police officer, including a police officer’s 112-time time at one-time time on the part of the 1112 police officer, who was dispatched after receiving a report from 112 at the same place as the foregoing 1.2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Related photographs, alcohol value receipts, CCTV CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (verification of suspect balance of passbook);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant has been punished three times by a fine due to the same type of fraud in 2017, but has repeated the crime of fraud, and that the Defendant has used violence to a police officer in lawful performance of official duties.

The defendant generally recognizes his mistake and reflects his mistake, the amount of damage caused by fraud is not significant, there is no criminal record of interference with the execution of official duties, and the crime of interference with the execution of official duties in a state of drinking.