[2] The elements for a blanket crime

[3] The case recognizing the crime of blanket use of credit cards

[2] In a case where a single and continuous criminal committed the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period under the same or similar method and the legal benefits of the damage are the same, each of the crimes shall be deemed as a single comprehensive crime.

[3] The case holding that even if the defendant's act of improper use of a credit card constitutes a single crime and the result of improper use of the credit card constitutes a crime of fraud, even though the crime of unlawful use of the credit card constitutes a single crime of fraud, since the crime of unlawful use of the credit card constitutes a single crime of fraud, and the crime of unlawful use of the credit card is in a substantive concurrent relation with each other, since the defendant had a single criminal intent to purchase goods from the member stores of the stolen credit card and the criminal intent of the same crime of unlawful use of the credit card is continuously committed in the same manner as the crime of unlawful use of the credit card.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to find guilty of the theft of passenger vehicles No. 1 in its judgment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, and the decision of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in the case where the court below sentenced the same punishment as the judgment of the court below. The

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public defender

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court of first instance. The court below acknowledged that "the defendant, around 09:30 on Nov. 2, 1995, stolen a sc-mark card owned by the victim's lower-ranking number of years held by the Dong at the self-wing bank located in Gangdong-gu 2 and 463-92, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on Nov. 2, 1995, and that at around 10:40 on the same day, purchased 20,00 local television 1 to 538,000 won at the high-end market price of Gangdong-gu, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and used a stolen credit card at around 20:0 on the same day by purchasing the above sc-mark card with the victim's lower-ranking credit card at around 13:00 on Nov. 2, 200.

B. Ground of appeal No. 1

If a credit card was stolen and used, the act of improper use of the credit card is deemed to be a violation of new legal interests. Since the infringement of legal interests is most larger than the thief, the act of improper use is not a thief ex post facto act of larceny, and it cannot be deemed to constitute the principal offender who stolen or lost credit cards or debit cards under Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act. Thus, it is justifiable that the court below held that the act of the defendant, who stolen the credit card and used them to purchase goods at the above credit card merchant, constitutes a violation of Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Credit Card Business Act. The grounds for appeal on this point are not acceptable.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the event that a single and continuous criminal committed the same kind of crime repeatedly for a certain period under the same or similar method and the legal benefits from the same are the same, each of the crimes shall be deemed an inclusive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do648 delivered on June 20, 198, Supreme Court Decision 90Do1580 delivered on October 10, 1990).

However, according to the record, the Defendant purchased goods worth KRW 2,00,000 from about 20 hours to 20 minutes immediately after the theft of the instant credit card, and paid the purchase price of each of the above goods by using the credit card as the owner of the said credit card. The Defendant’s intent to steals the credit card was to use it to purchase goods from the credit card member stores, and on the same day, to immediately return the said credit card member stores and use the said credit card each on the same day.

According to the above facts, the defendant had a single criminal intent to purchase goods from a stolen credit card member store and repeatedly committed the act of improper use of the credit card, which is a crime of the same kind, while the criminal's criminal intent is pending, and all of the legal benefits from the illegal use of the above credit card are the same as the safety of transactions using the above credit card and the trust of the public. Thus, the defendant's act of improper use of the same credit card as above constitutes a single crime. Even though the result of improper use of the credit card constitutes a crime of fraud and the actual concurrent relation, even if each crime of fraud constitutes a crime of fraud, the crime of unlawful use of credit card and the crime of fraud are deemed to be in a substantive concurrent relation with the legal interests protected by law or the form of the act. Therefore, there is no obstacle to treating the act of improper use of credit card as a single comprehensive crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which affirmed the judgment of the court below which regarded the act of unlawful use of the credit card as a separate crime and treats it as concurrent crimes is erroneous in the misapprehension of the number of crimes and the legal principles of concurrent crimes. The part of the grounds of appeal stating this point

3. However, the court below rendered a single sentence on the ground that all of the acts of unlawful use of the above No. 3 of the credit card theft and the judgment No. 2 in the judgment of the court below constituted concurrent crimes as stipulated in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part concerning the crimes of Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the remaining

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)