애스크로AIPublic Preview
← 학술논문 검색
학술논문고려법학2014.03 발행KCI 피인용 5

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

이주원(고려대학교)

72호, 319~349쪽

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.’

발행기관:
법학연구원
분류:
법학

AI 법률 상담

이 논문의 주제에 대해 더 알고 싶으신가요?

460만+ 법률 자료에서 관련 판례·법령·해석례를 찾아 답변합니다

AI 상담 시작
여신전문금융업법 제70조 제1항 제4호에서의 ‘기망·공갈하여 취득한 신용카드 사용’의 의미와 판단기준 | 고려법학 2014 | AskLaw | 애스크로 AI