컴퓨터등사용사기죄와 편의시설부정이용죄의 관계

The case in question involves a situation where an individual stole a car wash card from a storage compartment at a self-service car wash payment system and used the stolen card to pay for a car wash service by placing it on the payment terminal of the car wash machine. The first-instance court ruled that the equipment at the self-service car wash was a paid facility, with a clear indication of its commercial nature, and thus fell under the category of paid automatic devices, but did not fall under the scope of “computers or other information processing devices” for the purpose of computer fraud. The court also argued that interpreting this as preventing the obsolescence of the crime of improper use of convenience facilities was a valid reasoning. However, the argument that the crime of improper use of convenience facilities should be preserved due to the widespread use of computers and the increasing presence of such facilities is not correct. Particularly, if this interpretation leads to a gap in the punishment, it becomes even more problematic. The first-instance court incorrectly interpreted convenience facilities and computers as an either-or relationship, but this is a mistaken view. If the object constitutes a property benefit, in other words, in the case of a crime of obtaining benefits, the crime of improper use of convenience facilities should be regarded as supplementary to the crime of computer fraud, and in the case of the precedent in question, the charge of computer fraud can be applied. Furthermore, even if the self-service car wash machine is not considered a computer or an information processing device, the crime of improper use of paid automatic equipment should still be considered. If a person uses another’s car wash card without paying for the service, this can be seen as unlawfully receiving a service without compensating for it. The Supreme Court’s existing stance on this issue, which contradicts this interpretation, should be revised. Unmanned facilities are widespread now and will continue to increase in the future. This trend is natural in the era of shared resources and AI. As these changes unfold, there is a need for a legal interpretation that can properly regulate crimes within the new scope using the existing legal framework.