Repeated Fare Evasion 24 Times After Release... 50s Defendant Also Sentenced to Prison in Appeal Trial

Punished 24 Times for Similar Crimes, 5 Cases Resulted in Imprisonment
Court: "Intent to Defraud Fully Recognized"

A man in his 50s who habitually dined and dashed was sentenced to imprisonment again in the appellate court.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Intern Lee Gyehwa] A man in his 50s who was repeatedly punished for numerous fraud offenses and released from prison was sentenced to prison again in the appellate court for habitual fare evasion.

The Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Kim Jeongmi) announced on the 30th that Mr. A (57), who was tried for habitual fraud, was sentenced to 8 months in prison.

Mr. A was indicted for eating food worth a total of 53,000 won, including one bottle of soju, one bottle of beer, and side dishes, at a charcoal grill restaurant in Wonju, Gangwon Province, on November 7 last year, without paying.

He also habitually evaded payment three more times, on the 8th at a charcoal chicken ribs restaurant, on the 10th at a pub, and on the 11th at a chicken feet restaurant, consuming food and drinks worth a total of 102,500 won without paying.

The first trial at the Chuncheon District Court Wonju Branch (Judge Jang Suyeong) stated as the reason for sentencing, "The defendant has a history of 24 punishments for similar crimes, including 5 cases where he received actual prison sentences. However, considering that the amount of damage was not very large," and sentenced him to 8 months in prison.

However, Mr. A appealed, claiming, "I ordered food thinking there was a balance in my account, and since I was in a situation where I could receive government support funds, it is not a fraud offense."

The appellate court dismissed Mr. A's appeal based on the fact that the food bills have not been paid to date, that the bank account balance was only 939 won at the time of his release from Wonju Prison on October 26 last year, and that he had never applied for government support funds. The court further stated, "Considering the motives and circumstances of each offense, the original sentence cannot be seen as excessively harsh or lenient."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.