The liability for the crime of presenting a credit card to settle the price by a stolen credit card, but is clearly identified as a theft card during the verification process and immediately arresting the card.

The use of a credit card, which is an act of an act of unlawful use of a credit card under Article 25 (1) of the Credit Card Business Act, refers to a series of acts by which a credit card holder presents a credit card to a credit card merchant for payment, which is the original purpose of the credit card, and sign and deliver it on the sales slip. Thus, the mere presentation of a credit card is merely an starting act of the commission of unlawful use of a credit card and it cannot be deemed that the act

Article 25 (1) of the Credit Card Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do77 delivered on June 9, 1992 (No. 40-2, 662; No. 1992Ha, 2173)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No7859 delivered on January 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Article 25(1) of the Credit Card Business Act provides that a person who forges or alters a credit card or uses a stolen, lost, forged, or altered credit card shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won. Since the use of a credit card, which is the constituent element of the aforementioned unlawful use, refers to a series of acts by which a credit card holder presents a credit card to a chain store for payment, which is the original purpose of use of the credit card, and sign and deliver it on the sales slip (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do77, Jun. 9, 192). Thus, the mere presentation of a credit card cannot be deemed as having commenced the commission of an unlawful use of the credit card.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant cannot be punished for a violation of the Credit Card Business Act, unless the credit card business Act provides for an attempted act as above, although the defendant presented a credit card to pay the price with the stolen credit card, but did not prepare a stolen card during the card verification process and arrested the defendant without preparing a sales card, and the defendant's act is merely an attempted act of using the credit card. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of a violation of the Credit Card

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)