1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant entered into a contract with the National Card Co., Ltd. and the foreign exchange card Co., Ltd. and the credit card merchant Co., Ltd. on April 15, 1998 with the Defendant’s trade name, who received a request for a credit card loan from the name-defensor of the National Card Co., Ltd. on April 15, 1998, and the above name-defensor purchased a false sales slip using a credit card, as if he purchased an amount equivalent to KRW 2.5 million from the electronic communication, which is the National Card Member Co., Ltd., a credit card merchant, and provided a false sales slip using a credit card, and until June 12 of the same year, he provided the above name-defensor with an amount of KRW 2.1 million after deducting the amount of KRW 160,000 from the amount of the sales slip as shown in the attached list of crimes in the judgment below.

On the other hand, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, at around 12:00 on July 17, 1998, the defendant completed the sales slip using the national card received from the non-indicted 1 and received from the non-indicted 1 in the above place with the credit card, and then, at the same office around 11:57 of the same month, he prepares a false sales slip as if the non-indicted 1 purchased the goods equivalent to KRW 1.350,000,00 from the above sales slip, and then he provided the above non-indicted 1 with a false sales slip as if he purchased the goods equivalent to KRW 1.41,00,00,000 from the above sales slip amount after deducting the fees. On November 2, 1998, the above non-indicted 1 was notified of a summary order of KRW 300,000 as a violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and confirmed the above summary order on the 17th of the same month.

2. The court below affirmed the first instance court's judgment convicting Defendant 1 of this case's acquittal by taking account of the following facts: (a) the punishment provision under Article 70 (2) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act prohibits financial acts using a credit card and punishing the act of violation together with the maintenance of sound credit order to protect the property interest of the credit card company; and (b) where the credit card company differs, the damage legal interest of the credit card company is also different; (c) the crime for which a summary order has become final and conclusive and the charge of this case's charge of this case's charge of this case's charge of this case's charge of this case's crime Nos. 1 through 7, 9,10 are identical or similar with the defendant's single and continuous criminal intent; and (d) the crime of this case's charge of this case's charge of this case's charge of this case's charge of this case's violation is one comprehensive crime; (e) the court below's charges of this case's summary No. 8 and 1111 of this case's charges are reversed.

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below.

Article 70 (2) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "a person who provides credit card sales slips and provides funds in excess of the actual sales amount or pretends to sell goods or provide services." In light of the elements of a crime and legal interests protected by law, a crime of violation of the above provision is established only once the act of using credit cards is committed. Even if a certain period of time continues to engage in the same kind of self-financial act against many people, the crime of violation of the above provision cannot be deemed to be a single crime. Thus, it cannot be said that a single crime is established by combining it.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that one crime is established by including credit card companies in the case of using credit card to a large number of persons in violation of the above provision. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act or the blanket crime. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part on the dismissal of the prosecutor's appeal filed by the prosecutor among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)