In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted all of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete hearing. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

When the actual representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter address omitted), who was the representative director, was the Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) and was the representative director, the Defendant pretended that Nonindicted Co. 2 purchased goods or received services from Nonindicted Co. 1 using the purchase card of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2, which was the instant card, and attempted to provide financing by means of remitting the payment to Nonindicted Co. 1’s corporate account.

(i) the use of agricultural purchase cards;

Even if a person does not make a loan by means of a credit card transaction in pretending the sale of goods or provision of services, the defendant, at the office of the non-indicted 1 Company, pretended to sell goods or provide services to the non-indicted 2 Company, and settled 150,000,000 won with the purchase card of the non-indicted 2 Company at the non-indicted 1 Company’s office, and then, then he again remitted the payment deposited into the agricultural bank account of the non-indicted 1 Company to the non-indicted 2 Company’s account (Account No. 1 omitted) from the time to January 27, 2010, as shown in the crime list 1 of the judgment of the court below, from around 26 times to January 27, 2010, he provided funds in total amount of KRW 2,149,400,000 by means of a credit card transaction in disguise of the sale of goods or provision of services for 26 times in total.

(ii) the use of a national bank purchase card;

Even if a person does not make a loan by means of a credit card transaction in pretending the sale of goods or the provision of services, the defendant, at the office of the above non-indicted 1 on April 28, 2009, proposed that the non-indicted 1 sold goods or provided services to the non-indicted 2, and settled the settlement amount of KRW 90,194,086 with the purchase card of the National Bank of the non-indicted 2, and then then remitted the settlement amount deposited into the national bank account of the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 2, to the account of the non-indicted 1, from January 26, 2010 until January 26, 2010, as shown in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, 1,109,926,479 won in total by means of a transaction by credit card in pretending the sale of goods or the provision of services over 15 times in total.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that the facts charged constitute a crime falling under Article 70 (2) 2 (a) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, which is the crime under Article 70 (2) 2 (a) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had made the disguised transaction by means of “the method of transaction by credit card” by means of “the method of transaction by credit card.”

C. Judgment of the court below

1) Issues of the instant case

Article 70(2)2(a) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that a person who provides a loan through a credit card transaction or an act of making another person do so by pretending the sale of goods or the provision of services, etc. or in excess of the actual sales amount, shall be punished. The issue of this case is whether the instant card constitutes a credit card under Article 70(2)2(a) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act.

2) Determination

The court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: ① Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "credit card" is issued by a credit card company as a certificate which can be repeatedly settled on credit card merchants by presenting it. The credit card of this case is merely possible to make settlement through the Internet only for a specific customer registered in advance without actually issuing it; ② Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "credit card holders" refer to persons who sell goods or provide services to credit card holders, debit card holders, or pre-paid card holders through transactions using a credit card, debit card, or pre-paid card under a contract with a credit card company, or persons who sell goods or provide services to credit card holders, etc. under a contract with a credit card company, and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "the credit card holders" of this case shall not be deemed to fall under the above contract between the credit card merchants.

Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty of all the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Instigious Crime List omitted】

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)