All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, each of the offenses committed by the Defendant in violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act was committed repeatedly with a single criminal intent, and thus, the lower court rendered a second judgment on the basis of the principle of substantive concurrent crimes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court tried by combining the appellate cases against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses committed by the court below, which was consolidated in the trial, is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

A. In a case where the same kind of crime is repeated in the same or similar manner under the relevant legal principles and where the damage legal interests are the same, each of the crimes shall be deemed to be a single comprehensive crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1181 delivered on July 12, 1996, etc.). B.

Judgment

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s unlawful use of the stolen credit card from around 05:14 August 1, 2016 to 05:25 on the same day, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, is a single and continuing criminal intent to purchase goods from the stolen credit card member stores.