Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

Defendant

A.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the crime of transfer or acquisition of the access media under Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established by one crime for each access medium. However, since the transfer or acquisition of multiple access media at one time constitutes a case where multiple access media violate the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by a single act, each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). In this case, the Defendants’ violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on each access medium under the G name is in a mutually competitive relationship.

Even though it should be seen, the court below neglected this.

However, the court below erred in assessing the number of crimes as above.

As a result, there is no difference in the scope of punishment, and such errors of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

It is difficult to see it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7335, Feb. 28, 2003). It does not reverse the judgment of the court below for this reason.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

assessment; or