A. A. On December 21, 201, the Defendant violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring) around 21:00, at the E FranXG car parked on the front road located in Gumisisi, the Defendant purchased one for a disposable injection machine, which includes 0.42g of psychotropic drugs from the above E, and purchased and sold 2.50,000 won in return.

B. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act: (a) issued cash cards connected to the post office account under the name of the Defendant to G along with the serial number tickets; and (b) informed G of the password of the card.

As such, the Defendant transferred the means of electronic financial transactions.

2. Determination:

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., the Defendant consistently denies this part of the facts charged from an investigative agency to the court.

However, evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged is the only statement of the E investigative agency. In light of the fact that E makes a statement before the court that there is no merptist to the defendant, and that there is a voice of the outcome of the defendant's crypology and the result of the cryp evaluation of the defendant, the statement of the E investigative agency alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

B. As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 49(4)1 of the same Act prohibits an act of “transfer” or “acquisition of means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the same Act. As such, penal provisions should be strictly interpreted, and interpretation of penal provisions is prohibited in a manner unfavorable to the Defendant, or interpretation by analogy is prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7725, Aug. 25, 201).