A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. No person in violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business shall lend the name of a credit card merchant to another person;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on February 25, 2014, applied for a new credit card device from a person who was missing his/her name in the vicinity of the penting stadium in Songpa-gu Seoul Olympic Park, Songpa-gu, Seoul, for a new payment of the credit card amount deposited after the payment of the card by the corporation was made, and accepted the payment upon receipt of the proposal. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant living together with the Defendant.

On March 2, 2014, the credit card merchant reported in the name of "D" and received the credit card device, and around March 2, 2014, the FG golf practice center side side road in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E used the above credit card device to dry up the card device.

In collusion with C, the Defendant lent the name of credit card member store to another person.

2. The Defendant attempted to commit fraud, as described in paragraph 1, found the credit card device in the name in the name of “D” to be dryed, and on March 2, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim with the victim for the payment of KRW 100,000 by means of settling KRW 100,000 as if it was a normal transaction from the said credit card device via a credit card (G) at the place of influence on March 2, 2014, and filed a claim for the payment from the above date to March 5, 2014, by settling the sum of KRW 168,145,000 in total over 54 times from the above date to March 5, 2014.

However, in fact, the above "D" did not normally trade goods or provide services, and the defendant thought that the payment deposited after the payment of the above card will be used separately from the above person's name. Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the above card payment properly.

As such, the Defendant, in collusion with the victim exchange bank, attempted to deceiving the victim exchange bank, which is a stock company, thereby deceiving the amount equivalent to the above amount.