All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. On the part of Section 1, prosecutor 1, as long as the possessor of cash was subject to automatic payment (misunderstanding of legal principles), the manager of the automatic payment machine, who was in charge of the automatic payment machine, would have never accepted the withdrawal of cash by taking the card from the injured party if he knew that the Defendant had taken the card out from the damaged party, and if determined based on the intent of the manager of the automatic payment machine, theft of cash withdrawal is separately established, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of larceny.

2) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Financial Business Specializing in Credit, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession, and found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the act of threatening the owner of the cash card who is the owner of the deposit, taking the said card over, obtaining the right to use the cash card with the consent of the victim, and withdrawing cash at the automatic payment machine using the card constitutes a single and a single crime of conflict with the victim, collectively as follows: (a) since the act of withdrawing the deposit of the victim at the automatic payment machine constitutes a series of acts conducted under the Defendant’s single and continuous criminal intent to take over the deposit of the victim, the act of withdrawing the deposit of the victim at the automatic payment machine cannot be subject to criminal punishment for larceny, separately from the act of

Although the above withdrawal of the deposit is a defective expression of intent, the consent of the victim is based on the consent of the victim, and the cash card can be used lawfully and effectively until the victim revokes the consent of the victim. Thus, the bank is also obligated to do so according to its own will unless there is an application for suspension of payment by the victim.