The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had already obtained the consent from C and obtained the Samsung Card in the name of C with the permission of C, and it would not be a problem with the use of the Samsung Card in the name of C. However, the Defendant did not know that he applied for and issued the Samsung Card in the name of C with the recommendation of the Samsung Card staff, but he was issued with the Hyundai Card. As such, the Defendant obtained the consent to the issuance of the Card from C immediately after the issuance, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant used the modern card after he/she forged the application for membership registration in the name of C and obtained the modern card.

A. On May 23, 2013, at around 17:39, the Defendant responded to the question of “Creh.” and asked “Creh.” to the question of “Creh.,” and answer to the question of “Nreh.,” which “Ireh., directly preparing and signing an application.”

The above telephone recognizes that the defendant, who was suffering from the following day after the defendant prepared an application for membership of a card with the card solicitor, was issued a modern card and prepared an application, and the defendant's assertion that he was only recommended by the Samsung Card designer, and that he was unaware of applying for a modern card cannot be accepted.

B. Around September 2012, the Defendant’s receipt of Samsung Card and Slock Card under the name of Samsung Card was around September 201, and even if C consented to or impliedly consented to the issuance of the Defendant’s Samsung Card and Slock Card, the Defendant’s pre-issuance or use of the Hyundai Card.