The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and two months) of the judgment of the court below is unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. First, in a case where the confession of the defendant is the only evidence against the defendant, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in a case where the defendant is found guilty of facts charged on the basis of the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is an error of law

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835 Decided November 29, 2007). However, the lower court found the thief on October 22, 2013 among the facts charged and omitted the evidence of reinforcement in the summary of the evidence. In so doing, the lower court erred in violation of Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the rules of reinforcement of confession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the lower judgment that sentenced the above part and the remaining crimes to be treated as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and rendered a single sentence was unable to be maintained.

B. Following: (a) repeatedly commits the same type of crime under the same criminal intent in a single and continuous manner for a certain period of time and the same legal benefits are the same, each of the crimes shall be deemed to be a single comprehensive crime in total.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1181 delivered on July 12, 1996). However, criminal facts in violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, recognized by the court below, are that the defendant stolen the NH fitness card under H and paid the amount equivalent to the total of 431,600 won at the credit card merchant tax for a weak time, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant had a single criminal intent to use a stolen credit card and repeatedly used the same act of unlawful use, which is the same kind of crime, while the defendant had a single criminal intent to use the stolen credit card, by the same method. All of the damage legal interests are the same as the safety of transactions using the credit card and the trust of the public.

Therefore, the defendant was stolen as above.