전자금융거래법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Nos. 1 through 5, 12, 13.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
Where an access medium is transferred in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, one crime is established for each access medium. However, since an act of transferring a number of access media in a lump sum is a single act, it constitutes a case where several access media are committed in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.
It is reasonable to interpret (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). This legal doctrine applies to cases where a variety of accessible media are brought to, stored or delivered at once.
In this case, on March 22, 2018, the Defendant brought up 1 through 10 e-mail cards of crime, which were carried on the mail at the Ge-dong, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, in a lump sum, and delivered the above 10 e-mail cards to the non-person in a way of packing the e-mail cards of the above 10 e-mail on the 1st page of Ansan-si, the same day, around 23:00. On March 23, 2018, around 16:00, the Defendant brought up the e-mail cards of crime Nos. 11 through 14 e-mail cards of crime, which were carried on the mail at the G location, at one time. < Amended by Act No. 15304, Mar. 23, 2018; Act No. 15078, Mar. 24, 2014>
Therefore, each of the violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on the crime list Nos. 1 through 10, which the defendant kept or delivered at the same time, and each of the violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on the crime list Nos. 11 through 14, is an ordinary competition relationship.
In this regard, the court below held that each of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act with respect to the Cze Card Nos. 1 through 10 of the crime sight table, and the crime sight list in which the defendant has kept simultaneously.