beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant living together with C, who was in short of living costs due to economic difficulties, used a mobile phone in the name of C while easily acquiring C’s resident registration certificate, etc., and used to issue credit cards, open bank accounts, or receive loans.
1. Issuance and use of C credit cards;
A. On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant entered “C” and its resident registration number in the application form for the issuance of a credit card in one of the above smartphones used by the Defendant at the Seocho-si office located in Suwon-si with a view to interfering with business affairs after having access to the smartphones in the above C’s smartphones, which was used by the Defendant, and without authority, entered into the application form for the issuance of a credit card in one of the above smartphones and its resident registration number, and subsequently submitted the application form for the issuance of oneSK credit card in the name of “C” and submitted the application form for the issuance of oneSK credit card in the name of “C” with the intention to use it at the time. From the beginning of November 2013 to May 7, 2014, the Defendant forged and exercised the special media records, such as another person’s rights and duties, or other special media records related to the certification, as indicated in the list of crimes (1).
B. On November 11, 2013, the Defendant, such as a computer, etc., purchased goods equivalent to KRW 121,700 by using the above smartphone in the above office using the app scam, and inputs the information on the said credit card, which was issued as above, and stated in the written indictment for the “cubick” of the victim as the “victim OneSK Card”. However, if the Defendant grants payment by using the credit card in the name of another person, it is reasonable to deem the victim as the credit card merchant, and the Defendant acknowledges the victim differently without any changes in the indictment, thereby hindering the Defendant’s defense right.