beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the fact that the new bank card and the new credit card theft owned by the victim D are the victims, and November 2, 2017 are the fact that the new bank card and the new credit card theft are the victims.
Reasons
1. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim cannot witness the scene of the crime due to the nature of the larceny crime in light of the nature of the reason for appeal, and (b) the defendant did not speak to the victim D with the physical check card of a new bank; and (c) the victim did not withdraw 600,000 won in cash with the victim D; (b) the court below found the defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the victim merely sought 1.2 million won when she was diving as side by the victim.
2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. A. On November 2, 2017, at around 06:15, the thief: (a) around 06:15, 2017, the Defendant: (b) around 06:30,000 won in cash owned by the victim; and (c) around 13:13, 200 won in money owned by the Defendant, the victim, who was the victim, was stolen on the part of the victim D, by taking out one copy of the thief card and one copy of the thief premium; (d) around November 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the “F convenience” device located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu; (b) around 200,000 won in cash owned by the victim; and (c) at around 600,000 won in money owned by the victim; and (d) around 13:14, 2017.
In the way of receiving cash service of KRW 600,000 in total on two occasions by inserting a new credit card, which is owned by the D in this paragraph, and dividing the passwords, and 300,000 in cash, 60,000 won was stolen against the will of the manager of the above ATM instrument.
3) The Defendant in violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act unlawfully used the stolen credit card as stated in the above 2-B B. The lower court’s judgment did not err in using the stolen credit card. The lower court determined that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and thus, the Defendant’s new bank cream card and the new credit card (hereinafter “victim”).