The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of fraud and the crime of violation of the law of financial business specializing in financing fraud, the amount of No. 1 of the list of annexed crimes is not 10,000 won, but 8,000 won, and in the case of net 18 times, the defendant revoked the settlement of card, and thus, should be excluded from the crime.

B. The act of using another person's credit card (hereinafter referred to as "the credit card of this case") with different legal principles cannot be viewed as embezzlement and fraud.

The Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business does not apply to individuals who are registered as business operators of the Financial Services Commission, so even if the defendant used the credit card in this case, it does not constitute a violation of the Act on Special Credit Financial Business.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment ex officio (as to No. 19 of the crime sight table No. 19), it can be acknowledged that the defendant presented the credit card in this case to pay the price after eating food of an amount equivalent to KRW 5,000 at the A Q cafeteria on May 24, 2018, but the approval of the report of loss was refused, and the price was not paid.

According to the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the crime of violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business due to the use of lost credit cards has been terminated, and the Act on Special Credit Financial Business does not have any provision punishing the lost crime of using credit cards. Therefore, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Credit Financial Business is not established.

In addition, even though the Defendant started the commission of fraud by presenting the instant credit card as if it was one’s own card, the Defendant did not acquire any pecuniary benefits because it was not relieved of its obligation to pay money, and thus did not reach the acceptance of fraud and only bears the liability for attempted fraud.

Therefore, this part of the credit finance business is guilty of violation of the law and fraud.