A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part on the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) did not intend to commit the instant electronic financial transaction act with the singing employee and the instant singing employee. The Defendant did not have functional control over the Defendant’s joint processing intent and functional act as a joint principal offender. The Defendant’s mere delivery of the passbook, etc. rather than trading the passbook, does not constitute “the number of access media” as referred to in Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The acquisition of an access medium as prescribed by Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, based on the intent of the transferor, means the acquisition by transfer of the right to own or dispose of the access medium on the basis of the intention of the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4004, Aug. 23, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court are as follows: (i) the Defendant, upon receipt of a personal card from the phishing employee, accepted the proposal that “The Defendant would receive and deliver the card at a designated place, 50,000 won per case,” and the Defendant would receive the personal card transferred from C, G, and H, and the transfer of the damaged amount to the Defendant’s personal information, and the Defendant’s personal information, i.e., the use of the access to the Defendant’s personal information, i., the Defendant’s personal information, which became final and conclusive, by taking into account the following circumstances: