Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and ten months.

A. Defendant 1) 2 of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below in the second instance, Defendant 20, 2245 No. 2-2 of the judgment of the court below, and “holding” and “storage” are separate concepts. In the course of the criminal act of Bosing, the Defendant merely received a copy of each physical card from the victim AL and AR and simply possessed it by simple possession, and the Defendant did not have any intent to keep each of the above physical cards. In addition, the Defendant did not have an intent to keep each of the above physical cards.

As such, the second instance court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the storage of access media and the act of causing a crime of fraud as provided by Article 49 (4) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

B) As indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the second instance, the Defendant transferred 2 e-mail card as indicated in this part of the facts charged by the Defendant, which was against the Act on the Electronic Financial Transactions as stated in the judgment of the court below 200 high group 25.1. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant transferred e-mail to the other party the right to use the Defendant’s account on the sole basis of such circumstance. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the transfer of access media as stipulated in Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

2) Each sentence (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 8 months) that the lower court sentenced to unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced to the second instance judgment of the prosecutor (as to the second instance judgment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Ex officio determination 1) Ex officio, the first instance court decided to jointly examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses of the court below 1 and 2 against the defendant is a single sentence within the scope of punishment imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.