The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant asserts that, upon receiving a request from the victim to the effect that “the Defendant would raise the limit of the amount of credit card use and obtain a loan,” the Defendant did not know the exact name of the Z chief, who was introduced by the branch around September 2016.

The victim only introduced the victim to Eul, and at the request of the chief of the Z, issued nine credit cards in his own name (the credit cards newly issued to four existing credit cards, five new credit cards, hereinafter referred to as "the credit cards in this case") and cellular phone.

However, on April 2017, the head of the Z did not exceed the above date requested by the victim, and the defendant transferred the credit card of this case to the defendant. Ultimately, the head of the Z before April 2017, when the defendant received the credit card of this case from the head of the Zbu, the defendant used the credit card of this case, and the defendant did not use the credit card during the above period.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Z chief as using the victim's credit card from September 2016 to April 2017 and found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are acknowledged. (A) On September 2016, the victim sought the question of whether there is a method to raise the limit on the amount of credit card use (a) the victim sought the question from M, who is the next time at Ma.

Accordingly, M again inquireds of friendly job offersO, and throughO, the victim became aware of the defendant, who is an external third party of theO.

A victim is anO, M, and the defendant in a restaurant located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around September 2016.