logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.03.04 2015고정1111
여신전문금융업법위반등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant embezzled, on his own initiative, the Defendant: (a) did not take necessary procedures, such as acquiring one copy of the Credit Card Co., Ltd., lost by the victim C in the new apartment complex of the 19 U.S. Seopo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si; and (b) returned it to the victim; and (c) embezzled it.

2. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant violated the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business (hereinafter “FFF”) presented C’s NH NoFF FF’s credit card acquired, as described in paragraph 1, in calculating the franchise fee at the teel located in Kimpo-siD on September 23:21, 2015, and used the lost credit card by requiring C to settle lodging expenses of KRW 40,000 and signing it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. Receipts and photographs of cards (the defendant who was the defendant;

C asserts to the effect that there was no intention since C's credit card was used by admitting C's credit card with its own credit card.

However, according to the above evidence duly adopted and examined, while the credit card used by the defendant while entering the meeting is a white and yellow card, it is difficult for the defendant to perceive that the credit card of this case is a red affiliated card, so it is difficult for the defendant to recognize that the credit card of this case is a red affiliated card, and further, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the defendant had known that he was another person's credit card even though the defendant presented and used the credit card of this case without being limited to keeping C's credit card.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 360 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 360 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (the embezzlement of items departing from possession), Article 70 (1) 3 of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit, and the selection of fines, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Code, which increases concurrent crimes.

arrow