The parts against the Defendants are reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and Defendant C.

A. misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendants did not take over the access media as stated in the lower judgment’s criminal facts No. 1, and the seized evidence Nos. 6, 7, 19, and 21 are irrelevant to the instant crime, and thus, are not subject to confiscation.

Nevertheless, by misapprehending the legal principles, the lower court recognized the Defendants’ violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the acquisition of access media, and confiscated the said evidence from the Defendants.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the defendant A is sentenced to two years of imprisonment and confiscation, and the defendant C is sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment and confiscation) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

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

In the first instance trial, the Prosecutor added “Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act” to “Article 49(4)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and applied for the modification of an indictment to add the following facts charged (the point of taking over each approaching medium; the same shall apply to the facts charged in the lower judgment; the same shall apply to the facts charged in the first instance judgment) to the part of the charge of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the point of keeping each approaching medium) in the indictment. This Court permitted this.

In doing so, since the facts charged as seen in the above sub-paragraph (b) above constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the part of the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from reversal, and since the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants in its entirety cannot be maintained

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the above legal principles still remains subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Judgment on the primary facts charged 1) This Court runs counter to the primary facts charged.