A. The defendant can be deemed to have finally transferred his deposit passbook and debit card ownership or disposal right to another person, and the intention of transfer can also be recognized.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of eight million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) No person may transfer the means of access in using and managing the means of access.

On April 2014, the Defendant received a proposal from a person with no name in the name of a police officer to “to lend a loan by raising credit rating when sending a passbook or debit card.”

However, the Defendant, while sending the passbook and cash card in order to obtain the loan prior to the above method, had experience in not receiving the loan and receiving the refund of the passbook, etc., as well as from the fact that the Defendant had undergone investigation, and it was thought that the Defendant could not receive the return of the passbook and cash card from the above person under his/her name could not be returned. However, on April 2014, the Defendant transferred the passbook and debit card connected to the new bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant at the new bank account in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.

(2) Determination (A) The transfer of the means of access referred to in Article 49(4)1 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015) refers to the fixed transfer of the right to own or dispose of the means of access on the basis of the transferor’s intent. It does not include lending or entrusting for temporary use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4004, Aug. 23, 2013).