A. As to the violation of each Specialized Credit Financial Business Act against Defendant A among the judgment below (public prosecutor), the "credit card acquired by deceiving a person" under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act shall be deemed to include credit card acquired by deceiving a credit card issuing company.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that “credit card acquired by deceiving a person” under Article 70(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act ought to be deemed as meaning another person except for credit card issuing companies.

The Defendants asserts that each sentence of the lower court (2 years and six months of imprisonment, Defendant C: 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that a credit card issuing company under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act is treated as a credit card company, and the damage legal interest of this crime is the safety of transactions using a credit card and the public trust thereof, the credit card obtained by deceiving another person shall be deemed to mean a credit card company except for a credit card issuing company. Thus, even if Defendant A used a credit card issued under the name of B as stated in the facts charged, it is merely a credit card obtained by deceiving a credit card company, and it cannot be deemed to constitute "the use of a credit card acquired by deceiving another person" under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1443, Oct. 27, 2011). The prosecutor's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.