The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that the defendant stolen each credit card as stated in the facts charged of this case by the victim D, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. On July 10, 2012, around 12:30 on July 10, 2012, the Defendant stolen the victim’s property in the same manner as indicated in attached Table 1 among the aforementioned temporary owners to July 23, 2012. (2) On July 13:0, 2012, at the E office of the victim D’s operation of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor A-106, the Defendant used the victim’s non-bank card in the victim’s pocket in the victim’s pocket book. The Defendant used the victim’s property in the same manner as indicated in attached Table 1 between the aforementioned temporary owners and July 23, 2012. (3) Fraud and the Defendant violated the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, around 13:07, 2012, presented that the Defendant purchased the victim’s property from the 163rd credit card company’s non-bank name (F: F.)’s legitimate credit card holder’s credit card number 40.

In addition, from the above date to July 23, 2012, the Defendant used the credit card which was stolen on three occasions in total as shown in the attached Table 2, as well as from the above date and time to July 23, 2012, and acquired and acquired the goods worth KRW 32,837,000 from the victims.

B. The judgment of the court below held that the victim's series of actions, which the victim knew of the fact that his credit card was used by someone else, are ordinarily taken by a person who acquired the theft of his credit card, and that the victim of the ordinary course of action is from "AWC" through the defendant.