(a) Whether an employee is an employee who is provided with cash services at a cash withdrawal machine according to the original use of a credit card;

B. Whether a series of acts seeking the cash service of “A” with a stolen credit card is included in the illegal use under Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act

C. Whether there exists a influence on the judgment or error on some of the crimes in a mutually competitive relationship

(d)in the case of withdrawal and acquisition of cash, such as ‘B’, the crime of unlawful use of credit cards and the sex and relationship of larceny;

(a)a series of acts by the credit card holders to present their credit cards to and sign on the sales slip for payment, as well as acts by injecting the credit cards into cash withdrawal machines and manipulating their passwords, shall be deemed to have been used in accordance with the original use of the credit card;

B. For the purpose of Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act, the term “illegal use” means a genuine card with stolen, lost, or forged or altered credit cards, which is used in accordance with the original usage of the credit card. Thus, a series of acts to be provided with cash services by inserting a stolen credit card into a cash withdrawal machine and manipulating a password shall be included in the concept of the unlawful use.

C. Since there may be differences in determining the sentence due to the difference in the case where only a part of the several crimes in the ordinary concurrent relations are found guilty and the case where the whole conviction is found, it can be different in determining the sentence. Thus, even though several crimes in the ordinary concurrent relations are all convicted, the illegality which found the not guilty of some of the crimes has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

D. An act of withdrawing cash from an automatic cash withdrawal machine by illegally using a credit card in the victim’s name and acquiring the cash, not only constitutes a crime of unlawful use under Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act, but also a crime of unlawful use under Article 25(1) of the said Act, excluding his control against the will of the manager of the automatic cash withdrawal machine by acquiring the cash, and then transferring the cash under his own control. Therefore, the relationship between the crimes of larceny constitutes a separate crime of larceny. The legal interest and the form of the act completely vary, and thus, the relation

(a) Articles 6(2)1 and 6(2)2(b) of the Credit Card Business Act; Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act; Articles 40, 51, and 53 of the Criminal Act; Article 383(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 37 and 329 of the Criminal Act

C. Supreme Court Decision 83Do3006 delivered on March 13, 1984 (Gong1984, 750)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 95No683 delivered on April 6, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above charges of larceny of 10,000 won and 50,000 won for the above charges of the crime of larceny of 20,000 won by using the above stolen credit card in order to punish the above charges of embezzlement of 10,000 won and 20,000 won for the above charges of the crime of larceny of 2,00 won by using the above stolen credit card in order of the distribution order of the victim, which the defendant living in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and by using the above 10,000 won for the above charges of larceny of 2,00 won, and found the defendant guilty of the above charges of larceny of 3,00 won for the above charges of larceny of 2,00 won by using the above stolen credit card in order to use the above charges of larceny of 3,000 won by using the above stolen credit card in Changdong-gu, Seoul.

2. Determination

However, according to Article 6(2) of the Credit Card Business Act, a credit card company may engage in the business of financing (credit purchase) for installment purchase of goods and services to credit card holders or for deferred payment (credit lending) and the business of financing (credit lending) to credit card holders (credit card holders (credit lending). Ordinary credit card companies provide cash services by means of a credit loan to credit card holders. As such, a credit card company provides cash services by means of a cash automatic withdrawal to credit card holders, not only a series of acts of presenting credit card cards to and signing on a cash withdrawal slip for payment, but also a series of acts of receiving cash services by manipulating credit card numbers shall be deemed to be used according to the original purpose of the credit card.

Meanwhile, the "illegal use of credit card" under Article 25 (1) of the Credit Card Business Act refers to a real credit card which is stolen or falsified and used in accordance with its original usage. A series of acts to be provided with cash services by inserting a stolen credit card into cash withdrawal and manipulating a password shall also be included in the concept of illegal use as stated above. The court below's interpretation of the concept of illegal use as a mere interpretation of the credit card holder's presentation, preparation, and issuance of sales slips to a credit card merchant for payment, and it constitutes an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles of improper use as stipulated under Article 25 (1) of the Credit Card Business Act. Thus, the court below's decision that acquitted the above facts shall not be reversed on the ground that there is a difference between the cases where only a part of the number of concurrent crimes is found guilty and the cases where the whole conviction is found, and the sentence of punishment is imposed, and the above judgment of the court below shall not be reversed on the ground that there is a difference between the above punishment and the above punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1381308).

In addition, as shown in the facts charged above, the defendant's act of illegally using the credit card in the victim's name and withdrawing cash from the automatic withdrawal machine and acquiring the cash shall not only fall under the crime of unlawful use of credit card under Article 25 (1) of the Credit Card Business Act, but also excludes his control against the will of the manager of the automatic withdrawal machine by acquiring the cash, and then transfer the cash under his own control. Thus, the relation of the above two crimes shall be deemed to be in the relation of larceny separately because the legal interest and the attitude of the act are completely different.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)