The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the part concerning the violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. This part of the facts charged is that “A person who was administered by the Defendant at around 03:50 on December 28, 2017 with B, in the mother room, shall use the crepane card with the crepane B’s c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c

B. For the purpose of Article 70 (1) of the Act on the Financial Business Specializing in Credit, the act of withdrawing a victim's deposit by inserting a stolen debit card into an automatic cash payment machine and inputting a password, is not included in the concept of fraudulent use under Article 70 (1) of the Act on the Financial Business Specializing in Credit (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do397 delivered on November 14, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

According to the record, the Defendant: (a) carried the C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c on the day of the instant case; and (b) withdrawn KRW 200,000 from the said C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c

According to the above facts, the defendant's act of withdrawing deposits using B's debit cards as above can be seen as using the cash card function included in the above debit cards.