The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment ex officio (Violation of Specialized Credit Financial Business Act No. 2013No. 969) regarding theft cards (Evidence No. 67 of the Evidence Record No. 2013Kadan969), the Defendant may recognize the fact that, immediately after theft of Samsung Card, which is a credit card company, the Defendant paid three credit card merchants for about twenty minutes, as he/she was the owner of the said credit card, the sum of 5,400 won and the sum of 5,400 won and the sum of 55,40 won and the

The Defendant had a single criminal intent to purchase goods or receive services from store stores with stolen credit cards, and repeatedly committed the act of improper use of credit cards, which are the same offense while the Defendant continues to commit the same offense, and also the legal benefits from each of the unlawful use of credit cards, are the same as the safety of transactions using credit cards and the trust of the public. As such, the Defendant’s act of improper use of the same credit card constitutes a single offense, including the act of unlawful use of the same credit card.

Even if the result of improper use of a credit card constitutes a constituent element of fraud and each fraud constitutes a substantive concurrent relationship, it shall be deemed that the crime of improper use of credit card and the crime of fraud are in a substantive concurrent relationship with all different legal interests or the form of the act. Therefore, it shall not interfere with treating the act of improper use of credit card as

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1181 delivered on July 12, 1996. The court below held that the crime of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act is a substantive concurrent relationship and increased concurrent crimes pursuant to the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes committed in violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act,

3. The judgment of the court below has such reasons as above and the above part and the remainder which the court below found guilty are set forth in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.