A. In relation to the violation of the Act on the Transactions in Electronic Financial Transactions, the Defendant opened a passbook (the nominal name of the head) No. 1 through No. 8 of the List of Crimes attached to the lower judgment and transferred it to a third party (hereinafter “D”), and there is no fact that the Defendant threatened C with regard to the fact of intimidation.

Therefore, although the defendant should be acquitted of the facts charged of violation of the above Electronic Financial Transactions Act and intimidation, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts affecting the judgment.

B. The court below's improper assertion of sentencing is unfair because the sentence of one-year imprisonment, which the court below decided against the defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e.,: (a) in the police investigation conducted several times, C consistently stated that “A has registered a place of business as to D and created passbook and cash card under the name of the company and received the case fees of KRW 1.7 million in total from the Defendant” in relation to the fact of intimidation, and even in relation to the fact of intimidation, the Defendant, knowing that he was under the police investigation due to the suspicion of transfer of passbook under the name of Da, did not go through the phone by the Defendant, who was aware of the fact that he was under the police investigation due to the suspicion of transfer of passbook in the name of Da, and told the Defendant to the police station that “I would go through this chewing. If you were to farbly do so.” At the time of the police investigation, C threatened him with the admissibility of evidence on C’s statement, the court below sent the witness’s reply to his domicile, but did not appear to have been served a summons on C’s domicile.