정상적으로 발급받은 자기명의 신용카드의 ‘사용’과 관련된 죄책

Abstract

Through the 2004Do6859 ruling, the Supreme Court judged on the issue that occurs in the course of using credit card after normal issuance, not in the process of credit card in one’s name, inquiring of its criminal responsibility for the first time, and according to the aforementioned, the act of generating credit card business operator’s monetary claim as a result of using credit card is based upon the premise that card member will repay credit card business operator for card bills faithfully, so in case card member used credit card despite he or she is placed in a situation with no intention or ability to repay loan caused by accumulation of excessive debt, not a situation that the card member became incapable of fulfilling an obligation temporarily due to the reasons such as temporary lack of funds etc., criminal intent for defrauding or defraudation in fraud may be admitted. Unlike such a firm stand of the Supreme Court, different opinions on the criminal responsibility in the criminal law are conflicting according to the types of card use with respect to the case that card member had payment intention or ability to repay card bills at the time of being issued a credit card, but became lack of payment intention or ability when using credit card afterward, and especially, it is true that there exists considerably a skeptical perspective on imposing a criminal punishment on such type. Based on the situation of such issues, this study aims to analyze existing discussion on the punishability for specific’use of one’s own credit card by dividing broadly into positive and negative stance focusing on the criminal responsibility for the case that purchased goods or used service and the criminal responsibility for the case that used cash service hereinafter, and will finish discussion asserting decriminalization of use of one’s own credit card on the basis of arguments such as ambiguity of standard, poor credit evaluation of card company and discordance of the requisite for establishment of fraud suggested in the precedent.