1. From April 1, 2020 to April 18, 2020, the Defendant: (a) obtained one copy of the C card owned by the victim B from an insular place; and (b) returned it to the victim; and (c) did not take necessary procedures; and (d) took the Defendant’s thought to use it.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. Fraud and Specialized Credit Financial Business Act violation Defendant received food equivalent to KRW 18,00 in the E restaurant operated by the victim under the name in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seocho-gu around 18:00 on April 8, 2020, and the amount of KRW 16,517,370 on the total sum of 277 times from around that time to July 25, 2020, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes List, the Defendant was committed as if the Defendant was a legitimate licensee of the credit card and paid the amount of KRW 18,00 in the market price.

B The settlement was made using the above C Card.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victims, received property or pecuniary benefits equivalent to the total market value of 16,517,370 won, and used lost credit cards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the law on the use of the instant card to the police’s statement B on the Defendant’s legal statement

1. Relevant legal provisions for facts constituting an offense, Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act that prescribes the choice of punishment (the point of embezzlement of stolen articles), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 70(1)3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act (the point of use of lost cards) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the aggravation of concurrent crimes has committed fraud by using credit cards acquired by the defendant for a considerable period of time, and the frequency of crimes and the amount of damage are also reasonable;

Even until now, the defendant did not compensate the victims for damage.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.