A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely a temporary use of a deposit passbook, cash card, etc. under the Defendant’s name, because the lender who was the lowest recipient of the loan, and the Defendant did not transfer the above means of access, but did not have any intention to transfer it to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if there is a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act against a defendant on an unreasonable sentencing basis, the lower court’s sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine. According to the evidence, the Defendant: (a) was the person who opened a deposit account in the community credit cooperative by phone from the deceased; and (b) was the person who transferred the passbook, etc. to the deceased; (c) in light of the fact that not only did the personal information or office of the wounded at the time, but also did not specify the specific time, place, method, etc. of returning the passbook, etc., such act constitutes transfer of the passbook, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16167, Jul. 5, 2012). The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows; (d) the Defendant transferred the passbook, etc. to the deceased on March 5, 2013, which was the transfer of the instant passbook to the deceased on March 2013; and (d) the Defendant was investigated by the police; and (d) the Defendant was given a loan to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant transferred the passbook on July 9, 2013.