2. Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (hereinafter “Act”) prohibits “transfer” or “acquisition” of a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the same Act. In full view of the fact that the interpretation of penal provisions is strict and that the expanded interpretation of, or analogical interpretation of, the meaning of the express provision is not permissible to the disadvantage of the accused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do725, Aug. 25, 201) and the respective types of acts subject to punishment under the Act are distinct from each other, the “transfer of access media” subject to punishment pursuant to Article 49(4)1 of the Act refers to the definitive transfer of the ownership or the right to dispose of the means of access to another person. Thus, from the beginning, the mere transfer of the means of access without the right to dispose of it cannot be deemed included therein.

(C) On March 22, 2012, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s investigation agency and court statement; and (b) a copy of the application for bank transaction (Investigation Record No. 55 pages), etc., the Defendant considered the Defendant’s daily information space as an advertisement column stating “Amenbamenm Center” in his/her phone number at that location; and (c) made the phone number at that location; (d) the Defendant sent the phone number at that location; and (e) two male who was coming from the carren of his/her color number plate at that location; and (e) he/she made the Defendant’s monthly savings passbook employees at the company’s monthly savings passbook;

No corporate entity shall become its own name and shall be a corporate entity.