The defendant's assertion that he was lost rather than the transfer of physical card is difficult to believe, and according to indirect evidence, the defendant's transfer of the means of access is recognized, as stated in the facts charged in this case, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts in the court below that acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. In using and managing the means of access, no person may transfer or acquire the means of access unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, around November 20, 2018, the Defendant delivered a physical card, a password, etc. connected to the B Bank Account (C) in the vicinity of Michuhol-gu Incheon, Michuhol-gu, Incheon.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the means of access used in electronic financial transactions.

B. In light of the fact that the B Bank account as stated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “instant account”) appears to have been used for actual fraud, and that the Defendant’s appeal on the background of the loss of the C Card connected to the instant account (hereinafter “the instant card”) is difficult to easily obtain, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not transfer the means of access as indicated in the instant facts charged, but there is no direct evidence as to the Defendant’s delivery of the instant card to the bearer as indicated in the instant facts charged, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, namely, (i) there is no direct evidence as to the fact that the Defendant transferred the instant card to the bearer as indicated in the instant facts charged; (ii) the account appears to have been used directly by the Defendant for fraud (the details of the entry money that the Defendant appears to have used directly by November 21, 2018), and (iii) the Defendant’s entry into and departure from the instant account.