2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, recognizing that the Defendant acquired and used the cards owned by others. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(1) On July 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) carried a card owned by the victim on the alley of a drinking fright-dong in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu; and (b) stored the card in his/her wallet.

After making a statement, the Defendant appears to have been aware of facts other than his/her card from the time he/she met the said card at the beginning (the Defendant was holding that he/she met the “other person’s card” at an investigative agency.

was stated.

(2) The Defendant was aware of the fact that he had used the card owned by the victim because he was not paid at the H store by an investigative agency.

Although it was stated (58 pages of evidence record), it is difficult to understand that the defendant knew that he was another person's card from the time he was put in the beginning to the Do, and that he was presented with his card. The defendant tried to use the above card at the clothing sales store (H store) and the defendant refused to approve the credit card and settled it with his other card. After entering a restaurant (K), he took out the victim's card which was located in his wall.

In light of the fact that it was examined for one year (39 pages of evidence records) and that the above restaurant tried to use the above card again (41 pages of evidence records), etc., the above assertion by the defendant is difficult to believe.

(3) The defendant also has his card and the victim.