First, the perpetrator steals someone else's credit card and uses it on an ATM machine, which naturally constitutes theft. In other words, even if there is no provision in the third paragraph of Article 196 of the Criminal Law, the act of stealing credit cards and using them at ATMs should be regarded as theft. Because this behavior does not conform to the basic structure of fraud and credit card fraud, on the contrary, it completely conforms to the criminal constitution of theft.

Second, the behavior of the perpetrator stealing other people's credit cards and using them to natural persons (at bank counters or special merchants) should belong to the act of fraudulently using other people's credit cards, and the crime of credit card fraud should be established. However, the third paragraph of Article 196 of the Criminal Law clearly stipulates that those who steal credit cards and use them shall be convicted and punished for theft; In other words, this paragraph stipulates that some credit card frauds are recognized as theft. In this regard, this clause belongs to legal fiction, not attention clause. That is, the act of stealing a credit card and using it for a natural person is in line with the constitution of the crime of credit card fraud, but the criminal law still gives it the legal consequences of theft.