Nevertheless, on April 17, 2012, the Defendant opened a deposit account (C) in the name of B in the capacity of delegation of B at a corporate bank Dong-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, with the qualification of delegation of B, and the purport of the facts charged is clear that “the Defendant opened the account with the delegation of B.”

(See the police interrogation protocol against the accused) The passbook, physical card, and password, which are the means of access, were transferred to the accused.

2. The summary of the above facts charged is that "the defendant opened an account under the name of B with the delegation of B, and transferred the means of access, such as the physical card."

The principle of legality, however, requires that crimes and penalties should be prescribed by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from arbitrary exercise of state penal authority.

In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the explicit penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant as it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7725, Aug. 25, 201). Therefore, health class and Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act punishs the act of “transfer” in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the said Act. Generally, legal transfer refers to the definitive transfer of ownership or right to dispose of a certain thing or right, and thus, the means of access under the said Act has the right to own or dispose of the means of access.