When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

On November 27, 2008, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would immediately repay the cafeteria after purchasing the card to the victim D who was an employee of the said cafeteria at the cafeteria that he operated in Gyeonggi-si, Gwangju-si.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay it.

Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received one copy of the victim’s Samsung Card (E) from the victim, and then used 100,000 won from the cash payment machine established in the community credit cooperative located in 1131 Dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, for the purpose of paying for the number of days, etc., the Defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 5,049,670 in total over 55 times from April 23, 2009 as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning D police statements;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The summary of the charge of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant purchased goods equivalent to KRW 5,049,670, and used credit cards acquired by deceiving a person by deceiving the victim by using one copy of the above Samsung Card owned by deceiving the victim at the above date, time, and place, as indicated in the list of offenses in the attached Table.

2. The credit card acquired by deceiving “a person who sells or uses credit cards or debit cards acquired by taking by force or embezzlement, or by deceiving or threatening a person” under Article 70(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act refers to a credit card, not based on the owner or possessor’s intent, and is excluded from his/her possession or possession against his/her will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do857, Jul. 9, 1999).