The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in this case, the victim on February 14, 2019.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles, the theft of C Card on February 14, 2019, is not established since the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition is not recognized.

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

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principle

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times with theft, etc., committed larceny within three years from the end of execution of the final sentence with one C card owned by the victim and one copy of the C card owned by the victim at the victim B’s house located in Bupyeong-si, Busan around February 14, 2019, at the victim B, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor not less than three times.

(b) The credit card issued by the judgment of the credit card company is of economic value in that it can be purchased credit by holding it and can be obtained financial convenience.

Even if it does not mean that the economic value itself is embodied, or that it is valuable for credit card holders to receive services from the credit card company by means of proving that the credit card holders are credit card holders through their presentation or by injecting them into an automatic cash payment machine (see Articles 2 subparag. 3 and 13(1)1 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act), and using this, withdrawing cash from the automatic cash payment machine or purchasing goods from the franchise store.

Even if the credit card itself cannot be deemed to have been spent as much as the deposited amount or the settled amount of purchase. Thus, if the credit card itself used it as a lump sum and immediately returned, it shall be deemed that there is no intent to acquire unlawful profits.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do857 delivered on July 9, 199). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant purchased precious metals after receiving cash services from the victim B’s wall A on February 14, 2019, and purchased precious metals on the same day.