A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (public prosecutor) merely provides a defendant with a cellular phone, and was contained in a mobile phoneer.

It does not have the authority to use one card, and there was an intention to do so.

It is difficult to see one card as a credit card, which is separated from possession without the intention of C.

Therefore, one card constitutes a lost or stolen credit card under Article 70 (1) 3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle provides that a person who uses a lost or stolen credit card shall be punished. Here, the lost or stolen credit card refers to a credit card which is left from his/her possession or which is excluded from his/her possession against his/her will without being the owner or possessor’s intention. Thus, a person who acquired a credit card of which the owner or possessor has occupied or excluded from possession does not necessarily have to be punished for conviction (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do857, Jul. 9, 199, etc.). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by C upon request of the Financial Supervisory Service, etc. to file a civil complaint with the Financial Supervisory Service, etc. via the cell phone Internet, the Defendant was placed in the cell phone so that C possesses one card, etc., and the Defendant was holding one card, and the Defendant was using one of the card.

According to the above facts, the above facts of recognition are examined.