The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unreasonable as the penalty (2.5 million won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, we examine the violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business due to the withdrawal of cash among the facts charged in the instant case.

A. This part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from around August 16, 2017 to around 06:58, 07:02 on the same day, at the cash payment period for the management of the Victim’s National Bank (the central point of Dong Dongdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “F”), puts a stolen C’s physical card as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and uses the Defendant’s password card by withdrawing

B. Illegal use under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Act of Financial Business Specializing in Credit refers to a genuine card of credit cards or debit cards acquired by embezzlement, etc. which is used in accordance with the original usage of credit cards or debit cards. Thus, the act of withdrawing deposits by inserting embezzled debit cards into an automatic cash payment machine and inputting passwords cannot be included in the concept of fraudulent use under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Act of Financial Business Specializing in Credit (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3977 Decided November 14, 2003).

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

The court below held that the act of withdrawing deposits from the cash payer using the cash card function of the stolen C's debit card constitutes an illegal use of a stolen debit card under Article 70 (1) 3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business. However, the act of withdrawing deposits using the cash card function of the debit card is difficult to be deemed as an act of using the debit card under Article 2 (6) of the Act on Special Credit Financial Business in accordance with its original usage.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the illegal use of debit cards, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.