야간주거침입절도등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and two months) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, in a case where: (a) ex officio examines the same crime under the same criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal act; and (b) repeats the same legal benefits by the same method; and (c) if such legal benefits are the same, each of the crimes
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1181 delivered on July 12, 1996). However, the facts constituting a violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act acknowledged by the court below are that the defendant, for seven hours after theft of the debit card under the name of D, paid the amount equivalent to KRW 198,900 in total (in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of original instance, the amount of damage is stated in total as KRW 200,90,000, but this is obvious that it is an error, and thus, it is decided to correct ex officio ex officio after deliberation) for seven hours. It is reasonable to view that the defendant repeatedly used the same method as the defendant's criminal intent with a single criminal intent to use the stolen debit card, which is the same kind of crime, while the defendant's criminal intent continues to use it. The damage legal interest is the same as the safety of transactions using the debit card and the trust of the public.
Therefore, the defendant's act of illegally using a stolen debit card as above constitutes a single crime by including it.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which regarded each act of illegal use of debit cards as a separate crime and dealt with it as concurrent crimes is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the number of crimes and concurrent crimes, and the judgment of the court below which sentenced the violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act and the remainder as concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above reasons for reversal of authority.