Defendant 1 and one other

Regular Decree

Attorney Hwang Young-gu (Apon for Defendant 1)

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

68 days of detention prior to this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Seized evidence 1 through 5 shall be confiscated by Defendant 1.

Defendant 2 is not guilty.

Defendant 1 is a person operating an entertainment tavern (trade name omitted) in the underground of the (trade name omitted) building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

1. In collusion with Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 (the name of the building omitted) in order to install a surveillance camera at the entrance of the first floor of the building above (the name of the building omitted), to monitor the access of the main place, to prevent customers from reporting to police officers, etc. by installing a radio circuit inside the said main place, and to prevent them from reporting to a mobile phone; and Nonindicted 3 provides alcohol and alcohol to customers; Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2 demanded excessive drinking value while threatening customers under the influence of alcohol; Defendant 1 acted as if Nonindicted 1 et al. were to reduce the drinking value; and Defendant 1 attempted to receive money and valuables under the pretext of drinking value;

On August 2, 2005, at around 02:29, at around 02:29, the “(name omitted) building located in the (name omitted) Geumdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.” The victim Nonindicted Party 5's (name omitted) 50,000 won per each of the above 60,000 won cards and 1.350,000 won per each of the above 60,000 won was written on the (name omitted) sales slips from the victim's convenience store located in the (name omitted) building. Nonindicted Party 1 demanded the victim to make a bad appearance and 1.35,50,000 won per the above 1.85 million won per the victim's sales slips, and Defendant 1 had the victim make a total of 1.5 million won per the above 1.8 billion won per the victim's life and body without the victim's payment of the drinking value.

2. Use each credit card obtained from January 21, 2005 to August 2 of the same year from August 2, 2005 by Nonindicted 5, etc. 14 times as indicated in the annexed crime list;

3.Without obtaining permission from the competent authorities:

From January 21, 2005 to August 4, 2005, the main points of the “instant “(trade name omitted)” installed a singing bar with approximately 30 square meters in the area of the business place, and room six studs, and had many unspecified customers who found the said entertainment drinking house engage in entertainment bar business by having them drink with their name-free entertainment visitors and talk with them.

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1. Protocol concerning the examination of some of the prosecutions against the defendants 1 and 2;

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 5

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 17

1. Statement of police seizure;

1. Each photograph;

1. Details of terminal transactions;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 350(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 74-2 and 22(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 70(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Land to be submerged;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant 2 is as follows: Defendant 2 opened and operated a card merchant with the trade name of “(trade name omitted)” from June 15, 2004; Defendant 2 accepted Defendant 1’s request from customers of entertainment taverns for payment as if he purchased goods at the convenience store; and then accepted Defendant 2’s request from customers of entertainment taverns for financing as if he purchased goods at the convenience store;

On August 2, 2005, at the convenience store located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (mutually omitted), Non-Indicted 5 made a false sales slip as if he purchased an article equivalent to 600,000 won using the EL branch card in the name of Dong, and from the above date and time to August 2, 2005, he provided the same amount of tobacco and alcoholic beverage in lieu of cash equivalent to the credit card settlement amount after 2-3 days from the above date and from the above date and time to August 2 of the same year by pretending the sale of goods or the provision of services on nine occasions, such as in the list of crimes, etc. In order to meet the requirements provided in Article 70 (2) 3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, which is applicable provisions to the above facts charged, the credit sales is presumed to have existed, or the sales slip is prepared in excess of the actual sales amount, and the case where the credit card transaction was actually made not only by the credit card but also by the credit card sales slip, it shall not be included in the above judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2001636.

According to the records, Defendant 2 received a request from Defendant 1 for the settlement as if he purchased goods at the convenience store of the entertainment drinking house with the credit card of the entertainment drinking house customers and demanded financing, but rejected this request and brought them into cash instead of tobacco or other things. Accordingly, Defendant 1 can find the fact that Defendant 2 purchased tobacco or alcohol with the credit card of the entertainment drinking house customers at the convenience store of the entertainment drinking house customers and actually brought them to use them in his entertainment drinking house or sell them to other customers, and thus, it is difficult to find that the above credit card was actually traded with the credit card except that the above credit card was the card that Defendant 1 got from the customers of the entertainment drinking house, and if the sales slip was prepared according to the sales amount, it is difficult to find that there was no other evidence as to the above act of selling the goods purchased from Defendant 1, although it was written by Defendant 2, and it was written by Defendant 2, who prepared the sales slip, and even if it was delivered after 2-3 days to the actual goods."

Thus, the above facts charged against Defendant 2 constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judge Cho Jong-hoon