The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) As to the joint crime with C, the Defendant had never known that C used the credit card at the time with theft, and C had a credit card.

Since accompanying the sale of goods, it is not an act of using a stolen credit card or committing fraud in collusion with C.

2) Regarding the sole crime, inasmuch as the drunk J was used only at the time as her mar’s mar was used in the cycle of physical mar card, it did not steals a stolen debit card or commit fraud, it does not commit a stolen debit card.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the joint crime with C, the Defendant appears to have used a stolen credit card jointly with C, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in this part is rejected.

A) The Defendant, before D et al.’s coffee chain “Y”, was adjacent to D et al. al., and D et al., used a credit card as C when she stolened D’s mobile phone (Evidence No. 6291 (hereinafter “Evidence Records”)). Considering the circumstances leading up to the use of the credit card and the fact that D first did not have any reason to permit the use of credit card in the name of E/C, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that the said credit card was stolen.

C also knew that the credit card was stolen.

was stated (Evidence record).