If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

1. On August 15, 2017, the Defendant embezzled the above card without following necessary procedures, such as returning the card to the injured party, even though he/she acquired one copy of the post office post office post office check card lost by the injured party B from the log distance on the 29 road of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, with a joint signature.

2. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant in violation of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Fraud and Credit Financial Business purchased tobacco and beverage equivalent to KRW 29,900 from the E convenience store for the victim D’s operation located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and made the e-mail card of the post office B acquired as if he was his card, and made the price by presenting the e-mail card as if he was his card, and then by signing it, and acquired it by receiving tobacco, etc.

The defendant, including this, paid the price for the goods using another person's credit card which was lost five times in total, as shown in the list of offenses, from that day to 03:43 of the same day, and obtained the delivery of tobacco amounting to 265,800 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. B written statements;

1. A detailed statement of card use, a sales slips, and CCTV;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry about criminal history, current status of personal confinement, and application of the text of the judgment;

1. Relevant legal provisions for facts constituting an offense, Article 360(1) (a) of the Criminal Act that prescribes the choice of punishment (the point of embezzlement of deserted articles in possession), Article 347(1) (the point of fraud) of the Criminal Act, Article 70(1)3 (the point of use of embezzlement cards) of the Act on Specialized Financial Business, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act is that even though the defendant had been sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime, it is not good in that it repeats the same crime during the period of repeated crime, but it is not good to recognize the crime and reflects the purchase item.