beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.20 2016고단1350

여신전문금융업법위반등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidences 1 through 28 and 30 shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a foreigner of the nationality of Malaysia.

The Defendant entered the Republic of Korea by Malaysia with 28 credit cards that were forged, such as the Ameras Ameras Card, from the overseas credit card forgery of the name card of Malaysia, and entered the Republic of Korea to Malaysia, and then brought Malaysia the high-priced bags purchased by Malaysia, such as care for the name card of the department store in Seoul Metropolitan City, and received fees equivalent to 25% of the value of the goods purchased from Malaysia.

1. Around March 8, 2016, the Defendant violated the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit and the Defendant purchased “F” stores in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, in purchasing 1 copy of a year year, and presented a forged card (credit card number: G) under the name of the Defendant, which was possessed by the said C, for the settlement of the year unit price, as if the credit card was normally issued, and then acquired a forged credit card by signing on the sales slip received from the store employees, and then acquired a 1,267,000 won per annum from the store owner of the damaged party.

The Defendant used forged credit cards in the same manner in paying hotel accommodation expenses and food expenses at a total of 11 times, such as the one-year list of crimes attached to the same day, and in purchasing life cards, and acquired property profits equivalent to the total of 1,705,914 won.

In collusion with C, the Defendant used a forged credit card and acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving victims.

2. The Defendant who attempted to violate the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit and attempted to commit fraud in the shopping center “H” store, such as around 17:53, on March 8, 2016, within the shopping center “H” store, such as Paragraph (1) of the same Article, and purchased a master book, and the Defendant was in possession of a forged Defendant’s possession of a master book from the above C, on a normal basis.