2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In case of transfer of access media in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, one crime is established for each access medium. The act of transfer of multiple access media in a lump sum constitutes a single act of violation of several Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). The Defendant transferred 3 through 6 again, 13 through 14 re- , 16 through 18 re- , 3 2, 24 through 26 re- , 29 through 30 re- , 2, 31 through 34 re- , 2, 35 through 36 re-2, 38 through 39 re- , 2, 43 through 444 re- , at the same time and at the same place.

Therefore, the crime of violation of each electronic financial transaction law on the access media that the defendant transferred at the same time is in a mutually competitive relationship.

In doing so, the lower court erred by omitting Article 40 of the Criminal Act on the crime of commercial concurrent crimes, but even if the lower court erred by misapprehending the scope of punishment, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, the lower court did not have any difference in the scope of punishment.

As can not be seen, (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7762 delivered on April 9, 2004, etc.), the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed on the ground thereof.

B. Although the Defendant recognized the instant crime and did not lead it, the criminal proceeds do not seem to be high. However, the transfer of the access media not only undermine the sound trade order by enabling financial transactions outside the authority, but also is an essential means to enable other criminal acts such as singing, illegal gambling, tax evasion, etc. accompanied by financial transactions. The Defendant is the representative.