The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is as follows: around 18:30 on November 15, 2002, at the office of Defendant 1's operation in Jung-gu, Busan, the defendant 1 sent five copies of the credit card and one driver's license to the defendant 2 at the city with the request of the co-defendant 1 to cancel the discount of the credit card; on the same day, around 20:00 on the same day, the defendant 2 obtained five copies of the credit card such as the above Samsung Card, etc. from 32,50,000 won from dilution, and purchased the above 32,50,000 won from dilution and deducted the above 200,000 won from the above 30,000 won from the above 32,50,000 won from dilution, 200,000 won from the above 30,000 won from the above 20,000 won discount of the credit card store in Busan, Busan, Busan, and 2005,75,00.

According to Article 70 (2) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, "a person who makes a transaction by credit cards or makes a transaction by credit cards in excess of the actual sales amount or by acting as an intermediary or intermediary for a transaction by credit cards" shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won, regardless of the absence of actual credit card transactions. In order to meet the requirements prescribed in Article 70 (2) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, a person who makes a transaction by credit cards is required to make a transaction by credit cards in excess of the actual sales amount or to make a transaction by credit cards in excess of the actual sales amount despite the absence of actual credit card transactions, and is not included in the punishment provided in the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do3916, Nov. 10, 200).

According to the records, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 who were requested to discount five copies of the above credit card at the first instance court's discount again from Defendant 1, who had been requested by Co-Defendant 2, had been aware that the above five copies of the credit card were stolen cards. Park dilution, which was entrusted by Defendant 2, was also an employee of Symmpis Co., Ltd. who was entrusted with the sale of merchandise coupons by Defendant 2, is not the nominal owner but the above five copies of the credit card, and he believed that the above credit card was a stolen card for the purpose of raising the sales of the above Smpis, and in fact, sold merchandise coupons to Defendant 2, and issued merchandise coupons according to the sales amount. The above Smpis did not know that the above five copies of the credit card was a stolen card, but did not receive the sales amount of merchandise coupons from the credit card company. Thus, even if the above five copies of the credit card was actually a stolen card, the defendants could not receive the sales amount of merchandise coupons by using the above sales slip or service.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendants in the same purport is just, and there is no error in the interpretation and application of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)