The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The judgment below

part of acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (the guilty part of the 2013 Highest 602) (the guilty part of the 2013 Highest 602) obtained C’s prior consent in the issuance of Samsung Card or 1SK Card under C’s name or in the purchase and alteration of the AF Card 2. As such, the Defendant forged C’s application for the membership of Samsung Card Member, 1

(2) No person shall be deemed to have held a false investigation document.

Furthermore, the Defendant paid the Samsung Card and oneSK Card each month, and even after the end of March 2012, the Defendant did not pay the price because there was no income from the Plaintiff’s retirement from the Company at the end of March, 2012. Therefore, the Defendant did not have an intention to pay or ability to pay.

It shall not be deemed that there was an intention to obtain fraud or to obtain fraud.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and two hundred hours of probation and community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty portion in 2013Da602), while the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 100 million at the time of committing each of the crimes in this part, the monthly income is merely KRW 110 to 19 million and it is difficult to repay the existing debt. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the ability to pay the Defendant.

Furthermore, around August 2011, the Defendant stated that C was “a person who was subject to seizure and became a bad credit holder” and did not notify his/her property status or the circumstances leading to bad credit holder at the time. On December 2011, the Defendant concluded that C was a plan to obtain a loan equivalent to KRW 15 million, but was a plan to obtain a loan equivalent to KRW 11 million,00,000.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to this part of the loan is erroneous in misconception of facts.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can be seen by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.