여신전문금융업법 제70조 제1항 제4호에서의 ‘기망·공갈하여 취득한 신용카드 사용’의 의미와 판단기준
The Meaning and Criterion of ‘use of credit card acquired by taking by deceiving or threatening a person’— Specialized Credit Financial Business Act §70-①-4
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Any person who sells or uses credit cards or debit cards acquired by taking by force or embezzlement, or by deceiving or threatening a person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won in pursuance of Specialized Credit Financial Business Act §70-①-4. The Supreme Court interprets ‘credit card acquired by taking by deceiving or threatening a person’ in the given provision as ‘credit card that is extorted regardless of one’s will.’ Since in the case of threatening, the Supreme Court’s decision can be misperceived that the credit card is taken on a willful basis, some have misconception that a crime of illegal use of credit card can not established on the ground that the holder or possessor is threatened. However, This kind of misapprehension is resulted from the ambiguous and inaccurate expression of the given decision. The offending expression should be revised as ‘credit card that is extorted regardless of one’s free will.’
Abstract
Any person who sells or uses credit cards or debit cards acquired by taking by force or embezzlement, or by deceiving or threatening a person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won in pursuance of Specialized Credit Financial Business Act §70-①-4. The Supreme Court interprets ‘credit card acquired by taking by deceiving or threatening a person’ in the given provision as ‘credit card that is extorted regardless of one’s will.’ Since in the case of threatening, the Supreme Court’s decision can be misperceived that the credit card is taken on a willful basis, some have misconception that a crime of illegal use of credit card can not established on the ground that the holder or possessor is threatened. However, This kind of misapprehension is resulted from the ambiguous and inaccurate expression of the given decision. The offending expression should be revised as ‘credit card that is extorted regardless of one’s free will.’
참고문헌 (19)
- 김일수, "형법각론" (2009), 박영사
- 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" (2011), 박영사
- 박상기, "형사특별법" (2013), 집현재
- 박재윤, (2006), 한국사법행정학회
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2010), 홍문사
- 이재상, "형법각론" (2012), 박영사
- 이주원, "특별형법" (2013), 弘文社
- 이주원, "특별형법" (2014), 홍문사
- 강동범, "여신전문금융업법상 신용카드의 취득·사용·처분범죄처벌규정의 검토", 법조, 57(3), pp.42~87 (2008), 법조협회
- 강일원, "절취한 전화카드의 사용과 사문서부정행사", 대법원판례해설, (41) (2002)
- 김영환, "현금자동지급기의 부정사용에 관한 형법적인 문제점", 판례월보, (329) (1998)
- 김우진, "신용카드 부정사용죄의 기수시기", 형사판례연구, 3 (1995)
- 성지호, "여신전문금융업법 제70조 제1항 소정의 부정사용의 의미 및 절취한 직불카드를 이용하여 현금자동지급기로부터 예금을 인출하는 행위가 직불카드부정사용죄에 해당하는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, (48) (2004)
- 손동권, "신용(현금)카드 부정사용의 유형별 범죄성립과 죄수", 형사판례연구, 7 (1999)
- 안경옥, "타인 명의를 모용·발급받은 신용카드를 이용한 현금인출행위와 컴퓨터 등 사용사기죄", 형사판례연구, 11 (2003)
- 오영근, "신용카드 관련 재산범죄에 대한 판례이론의 비판적 검토", 법학논총, 26(3), pp.103~124 (2009), 법학연구소
- 임양운, "신용카드 범죄의 실무상 문제", 저스티스, 29(3) (1996)
- 장영민, "신용카드 범죄에 대한 형사법적 검토", 법학논집, 7(2), pp.41~64 (2003), 법학연구소
- 하태훈, "현금자동인출기 부정사용에 대한 형법적 평가", 형사판례연구, 4 (1996)
