logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.08.10 2016고정593
여신전문금융업법위반
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A worked in B from June 2015 to June 2015.

Defendant

A On September 25, 2015, at the E amusement station located in D on September 25, 2015, after receiving a request from F, who operates the said entertainment center, to allow F to pay the drinking value of customers using the said B credit card settlement terminal, and after issuing a credit card settlement terminal opened in the above B name to F, F would have F pay 860,000 won using the said credit card settlement terminal as presented by G, a customer, with a credit card presented by G, in order to calculate the drinking value. From September 25, 2015 to September 26, 2015, A made a payment using the credit card settlement terminal opened in the above name of B three times in total.

Accordingly, the defendant lent the name of the credit card merchant to another person.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd., Ltd., at the time and place of the above A, and at the same time and place, Defendant B, an employee of the Defendant, caused the Defendant to commit a violation as referred to in the above A.

Accordingly, the above defendant allowed an employee to lend the name of credit card member store to another person in connection with his business.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, the defendant A's main points of the above amusement, and the F is recognized to have approved the customer's drinking value using the card settlement terminal of the defendant B.

However, Defendant A consistently provided a card settlement terminal by consistently paying the credit amount of beverages with the F to this court, as well as the police, until this court, and Defendant A did not allow F customers to use the card or lend the name of credit card merchant to F customers for the settlement of the credit card payment.

statement is made.

Each legal statement of F and H in this Court is the same as that of Defendant A.

F makes payments using the card price terminal of corporation B is nothing more than that of the F.

arrow