beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Larceny;
A. On December 23, 201, around 17:40 on December 23, 201, the Defendant: (a) 10 copies of gift certificates owned by the said victim, 10,000 won per day of gift certificates owned by the said victim; (b) 6 copies of notes in the said victim’s name; (c) 2 copies of resident registration certificates of the said victim; and (d) one copy of the said victim’s driver’s license.
B. On July 25, 2012, around 17:50 on July 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) 9 cards, such as the Korean Vec cards, owned by the said victim; (b) one resident registration certificate and driver’s license; and (c) six copies of the security cards of one bank, etc. owned by the said victim; and (d) stolen them.
C. On July 30, 2012, around 15:30 on July 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim G in a food store of the first floor F-gu Daejeon, Daejeon; (b) cut off a 500,000 won of a new global merchandise coupon owned by the said victim; (c) one sheet of KRW 1,000,000; (d) four copies of a book merchandise coupon; and (e) a wall of KRW 500,000 of a market price consisting of four copies of a credit card.
2. Fraud and violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;
A. On July 25, 2012, at around 18:00, the Defendant purchased 24K gold bars equivalent to the market price of 270,000 won at the J. 1’s precious metal store operated by the Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and used the credit card that stolen the victim I as if the victim I had a legitimate authority to do so, by presenting the Korean V.C. card indicated in paragraph 1(b) of E, which was stolen, and signed on the card sales slip and received property equivalent to the same amount.
B. On July 25, 2012, around 18:03, the Defendant purchased tobacco equivalent to KRW 2,500 of the market price at the convenience point of the victim L operation in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and one bottle of drinking water equivalent to KRW 1,200 of the market price. The Defendant presented the VV check indicated in the preceding paragraph of the E-owned ownership, which was stolen as if he/she had legitimate authority to complete the work of his/her employees.