A. On October 30, 2018, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the fraud by using computers, etc. on the part of October 30, 2018, the Defendant’s act of obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the oil price by using a stolen person’s physical card at an accelerator, constitutes a crime of fraud by using computers, etc., but the Defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained pecuniary benefits, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of

(2) Sentencing (the sentence of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months)

B. The sentencing of the Defendant (the sentence of the lower court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months)

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle regarding the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. as provided in Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act is limited to the property interest, not property, but property interest. The defendant's act takes the gasoline under his control by excluding his control against the will of the manager of the gas station. Thus, in the case of using the gas station, unlike the case of receiving gasoline by deceiving employees of both holders of the oil card, if using the gas station, there is no evidence to regard that the use of the gas station was actually taking the oil, and there is no evidence to regard that the use of the gas station was gained property interest, excluding the crime of larceny is established, and not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) If the judgment of the court below is closely compared with the records, the conclusion of the court below that acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

B. The prosecutor and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.