특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도) 등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Each of the facts charged in this case.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal and misapprehension of legal principles on unreasonable sentencing (the purport that no habituality is recognized)
2. Determination:
A. The "illegal use" under Article 70 (1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act means a real card with forged, altered or stolen credit cards or debit cards, which is used in accordance with the original usage of credit cards or debit cards. Thus, the act of withdrawing a victim's deposit by inserting stolen credit cards into online cash automatic machines and inputting passwords cannot be deemed as included in the concept of illegal use under Article 70 (1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and it does not constitute a violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act.
(2) On November 14, 2003, the court below held that the defendant's act of inserting the victim's deposit by inserting a stolen credit card into an online cash payment machine and inputting a password constitutes the use of a stolen credit card under Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, and found the defendant guilty of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act among the charges of this case. In this part of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of unlawful use of credit cards under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it cannot be maintained that the judgment of the court below is in violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act.
However, the court below sentenced the remaining guilty portion to a single punishment by deeming it as a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal.
B. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle: Provided, however, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is still subject to the judgment by this court, and this is already examined and the defendant.