Whether the act of withdrawing cash from an automatic cash payer with another person's credit card constitutes a constituent element of the crime of fraud by using a computer, etc. (negative)

Article 347 of the Criminal Code provides that the object of the crime of property or property benefits shall be defined as the crime of property and gain. Unlike Article 347 of the Criminal Code, Article 347 of the Criminal Code provides that the object of the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. shall be limited to property benefits, not property. Thus, as long as withdrawal of cash from an automatic cash payment machine with a stolen another's credit card constitutes a crime of property, it shall not be punished as the crime of fraud by using computers, etc., unless it is obvious that the act of withdrawing cash from an automatic cash payment machine is a crime of property, and the legislative intent is different on the ground that there was a concern about the imbalance of punishment compared with other similar cases.

Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2002No4281 Delivered on February 7, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act provides that the object of the crime of property or property benefits shall be defined as the crime of property and gain. Unlike Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act, since Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act provides that the object of the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. shall be limited to property benefits, not property, but property benefits. Thus, as long as withdrawal of cash from an automatic cash payment machine with a stolen another's credit card is obvious that it constitutes a crime of property, it shall not be punished as the crime of fraud by using computers, etc., and the legislative intent otherwise cannot be viewed as different solely on the ground that the legislative intent was intended to punish the above crime or that there is a possibility of an imbalance in punishment compared with other similar cases (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2134, Jul. 12, 2002).

In the same purport, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendant of the receipt of cash services by inserting the stolen credit cards into an automatic cash withdrawal machine, which is the data processing unit, and inputting the password of the above credit card, which is the information known in advance on the device, without authority, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the objects of the crime of fraud by using the computer, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)