The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.

1. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal ex officio. A.

Article 70(2)2(a) of the former Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (amended by Act No. 13068, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that a person who provides financing through “an act of pretending to sell goods or provide services, or making another person do so by credit card or making another person do so by proxy in excess of the actual sales amount,” or a person who mediates such financing, shall be punished.

However, penal provisions under the principle of no crime without the law are strictly interpreted in accordance with the language and text, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the above provision shall be deemed to apply only to the case where a credit card financing, brokerage, or arrangement is made by using a credit card or making a payment by credit card in excess of the actual transaction amount, as if the actual transaction had not been made, despite the absence of the actual transaction by using a

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6606 Decided March 11, 2004, etc.). Accordingly, in a case where there exists a cause of payment subject to a credit card and the settlement of the amount is made as it is, the actual purpose of using the credit card does not constitute the subject of punishment under the above provision, even if the actual purpose of using the credit card lies in the financing of funds.

B. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

Defendant

B Around early 2012, a person who opened a card-to-beer card-to-beer card-to-beer card-to-beer (one-beer-be G) in order to lend funds to those who need money and obtain the revenue of fees from the card-to-beer-beer-to-beer-beer-beer-bed, and Defendant A who is appointed as a certified judicial scrivener office-to-be asked the clients to pay taxes such as real estate acquisition tax, registration tax, and pay cash to those who need money.