[1] The time of the crime of unlawful use of credit cards

[2] The case holding that even if a person who stolen a credit card presents a credit card to pay the price and obtained the approval of the credit card company, if it was not signed with the sales slip and it was revealed that it was a stolen card and the transaction was finally terminated by the cancellation of sales, it is merely an attempted use of the credit card

[1] Article 70 (1) of the Credit Finance Business Act / [2] Article 70 (1) of the Credit Finance Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do77 delivered on June 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 2173) Supreme Court Decision 93Do604 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 224)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2007No1835 Decided September 28, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 70 (1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that a person who sells or uses a lost or stolen credit card or debit card shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won. The use of a credit card, which is a constituent act of the above illegal use, refers to a series of acts of a credit card holder presenting a credit card to a chain store for payment, which is the original purpose of the credit card, and signing and issuing a sales slip (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do77, Jun. 9, 192; 93Do604, Nov. 23, 1993, etc.). Thus, merely presenting a credit card cannot be deemed as having started the commission of the crime of unlawful use of credit card, and the same applies even if the credit card company obtained approval for the transaction that presented the credit card.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's act was merely an attempted act of using a credit card, unless there is a provision punishing such attempted act as above in the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, and the defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the above law. The judgment below is just and there is no violation of the law of the Specialized Credit Finance 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)