All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, BC is named.

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the progress records of the decision to commence a retrial.

On October 24, 2012, the Defendant filed an appeal with Busan District Court, the first instance court of Busan District Court, for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thth th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

On February 26, 2013, the Busan District Court rendered a joint trial with the Busan District Court Decision 2013No 399 decided on February 26, 2013, and rendered a joint trial with the case No. 2012 No. 3481, Mar. 15, 2013, and sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) and the Defendant filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court as Supreme Court Decision 2013Do363, Jun. 27, 2013; however, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing the final appeal on June 27, 2013.

After that, the Defendant filed a petition for review of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on November 6, 2015 (2015 No. 19) and became final and conclusive on November 6, 2015.

The Defendant withdrawn the deposit of BC using credit cards in the name of BC with respect to the violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business Using Credit Cards in the name of BC among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles on the gist of the grounds for appeal

Even if such an act is merely a use of a cash card combined with a credit card, and thus cannot be deemed as a use under the original usage of the credit card, and thus, cannot be included in the concept of “illegal use” under Article 70(1) of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant.