The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the fact, merely used a credit card with the victim C’s remaining D's living together with the victim C’s use of the credit card, not theft.

B. Of the sentencing division, the sentence of the lower court (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. (1) An ex officio decision was made by the prosecutor, and the application for changes to a bill of indictment was filed by changing the part relating to the larceny among the facts charged in the instant case into embezzlement. Since the subject of adjudication was changed by a party member’s permission, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant made a statement recognizing the changed facts charged in the trial court at the party.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is so decided as follows.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. On July 14, 2014, around 15:50, the Defendant: (a) around 23, 2014, at the government-based regional prosecutor’s office of the government branch of the government branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu branch of the Gu

In this respect, he embezzled.

2. Fraud;

A. On July 14, 2014, around 16:20 on July 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) filled gas in (State)G operated by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Victim F; (b) did not have the right to use the embezzled credit card; and (c) did not have the right to use it; (d) the Defendant embezzled the victim as if the victim had a legitimate possession.

C The credit card in the name of a new bank is presented to have the victim pay the gas price by the said credit card, and then gas equivalent to the market price of 3,154 won from the victim.