The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant only used the credit card of the victim who has been abandoned on a road, and did not commit theft by entering the victim’s house.

(2) Even if domestic affairs and criminal defendant's larceny are recognized, it is insufficient to recognize habituality.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (1) We examine the lower court’s ex officio punishment for concurrent crimes.

When the defendant has a single criminal intent to purchase goods from the member stores with a stolen card and repeatedly uses the same credit card in the same manner while the criminal's criminal intent continues, and both the damage legal interests of each of the unlawful use of the credit card are the same as the safety of transactions using the same credit card and the trust of the public, the defendant's act of improper use of the same credit card constitutes a single crime. Even though the result of improper use of the credit card constitutes a single crime and constitutes a substantive concurrent relation, even though each of the crime of unlawful use of the credit card corresponds to the elements of fraud, it shall be deemed that the crime of unlawful use of the credit card and the crime of unlawful use of the credit card are in a substantive concurrent relation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1181 delivered on July 12, 1996. However, the court below recognized the crime of fraud and attempted fraud in its holding, and the crime of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act due to unlawful use of credit cards, and held that the crime of fraud and attempted fraud are in a mutually competitive relationship between the crime of violation of specialized credit financial business and the crime of attempted fraud in Article 40 of

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes and concurrent crimes as seen earlier, and such illegality affected the judgment.

(2) While the indictment was modified, the prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of the law in the trial.