All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a sales company, which used the exclusive-use card for business purchase, claimed the payment without notifying that the supply details sent by a purchasing company (member) to the credit card company was made up by fraudulent means at the time when the credit card company received money from the credit card company as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, and the credit card company illegally delivered the money equivalent to the price because it actually provided services by a selling company as stated in the supply details transmitted by the credit card company, if the credit card company did not have a relationship with the sales company, such as refusing to pay the purchase amounts based on the false supply details of the most false supply details, the act of claiming the payment to the credit card company without notifying the sales company that it was the most false supply details, constitutes a fraudulent act as a crime of fraud, and even if the credit card company had the intent and ability to pay the purchase amounts to such fraudulent acts, it is established as a crime of fraud, even if it had had had the intent to commit a crime of fraud.

(2) The court below's decision on February 12, 199 is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on deception or fraud in fraud.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. Article 70(2)2(a) of the former Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (amended by Act No. 10062, Mar. 12, 2010; hereinafter the same) is deemed to exceed the actual sales amount or actual sales amount.