A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2017 Highest 17" is a person who worked for the victim D, operated by the victim D, in Seoul, from September 1, 2013 to January 4, 2014, as an employee.

1. Crimes related to victims D;

A. The Defendant, at around November 20, 2013, would lend the credit card to the victim at the above Eda, “after using the credit card, he/she will pay the payment by the settlement date.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if he borrowed the credit card from the person who suffered damage to the bad credit holder.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) delivered one copy of the Hyundai Card (G) in the name of the victim from the victim; and (c) from November 22, 2013 to December 29, 2013, the Defendant purchased goods from the department store; (c) used the total amount of KRW 5,668,510 over 35 times, such as purchase of goods from the department store; and (d) exempted the payment of the credit card price, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the said amount.

B. On December 2013, the Defendant received a request for return of the said modern card and returned it to the victim on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the card amount from the injured party.

On January 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was placed in the above EDamb, and (b) was placed in the victim D’s wall, and (c) was kept in custody.

L. A. L. theft was committed.

(c)

On January 5, 2014, the Defendant, in violation of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Fraud and Credit, purchased one gold scraping amounting to KRW 3,755,000 in the market price from the J operated by the victim I of the victim I in the Southern Hacheon-si, the Defendant presented the F's modern card in the name of the stolen.

However, in fact, there was no intention or ability to pay the price for the goods because it was intended to pay the price for the goods using stolen credit cards.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to settle the card at the seat, i.e., the victim, and used the stolen credit card. From that time until January 9, 2014.