A. The court below's judgment not guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the use of credit cards with a false representation of another person's name constitutes "use of credit cards acquired by deceiving a person" under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "Credit card acquired by deceiving a person" under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act means a credit card company under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, in light of the fact that the credit card issuing company is treated specially as a credit card company, the damage legal interest of this crime is the safety of transactions using a credit card and the public trust thereof, and the defendant used the credit card issued in the name of another person, such as facts charged.

This does not constitute "the use of credit cards acquired by deceiving a credit card issuing company, and it does not constitute "the use of credit cards acquired by deceiving a person under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act".

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do11443, Oct. 27, 2011). Accordingly, prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

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