beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2013 Height885]
1. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant shall pay the card to the victim” at the credit service office of the victim D’s operation located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, that “The Defendant shall pay the card to the victim on the following day from the date when the credit service office is settled prior to the settlement of the card.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was in arrears at the time, and the Defendant was liable from credit service providers to pay up to 0 million won, and as such, the Defendant had to use the credit card in return for other debts even if he borrowed money from the credit service provider in return for the card, and it was difficult for the Defendant to pay it normally to the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above, and caused the victim to take over KRW 3.1 million. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant acquired KRW 13,778,308 by deceiving the victim to transfer KRW 16,878,308 in total to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the Defendant due to the advance payment of the Samsung Card price to the company bank account in the name of the Defendant, around July 20, 2012.
2. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant issued the victim F as security the Samsung Card and Hyundai Card, which is a credit card in the name of the Defendant, to the victim E, and the victim F. The Defendant paid the amount of KRW 20 million per each card to pay by substitute, and the amount of the credit card would be paid by a party to the instant card.
However, even if the defendant provides a credit card in the name of the defendant, he thought that the victim would immediately suspend the credit card through a discount loan (one-name card tin), and the credit card payment was overdue at that time, and the credit service provider was liable for the debt from the credit service provider up to 10 million won, so even if he borrowed money from the victim under the pretext of paying the card in lieu of the card, the defendant has to use it in preventing the return of other obligations.