The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In mind of finding the principal, the Defendant: (a) provided a new physical card owned by the victim D (hereinafter “victim”); and (b) one copy of the Saemaul Bank’s physical card (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant card”) as indicated in the lower judgment; (c) there was no intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition; and (d) he was aware of and used the instant card under the influence of alcohol; (c) thus, there was no intention of committing a crime of fraud or a crime of violation of the Act on Specialized Financial Business.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the Defendant, after acquiring the instant card, used the said card without making any effort to report the fact of acquiring the said card or to find a victim, and ② the Defendant did not own a new bank check, and the Defendant knew that he purchased 30 copies of the instant card using the new bank check, but did not know that he was not his own card.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant holds 30 copies of the above so-called letter or voucher 30 and the police seizes the whole, the defendant cannot be seen as having cancelled the settlement immediately after the above purchase, and the defendant paid the taxi with the above new bank physical card even after the purchase of the above letter or voucher 30.

The possibility that the defendant could confuse the instant card as his own because of the difference of the front door transfer of the Saemaeul Treasury's e-mail card and the Saemaeul Treasury's e-mail card owned by himself is small, and the monthly income of the defendant is about 70 to 80,000 won even if the defendant's statement is based on the defendant's statement (120 pages of evidence records).