Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

In order for a prosecutor to maintain the facts charged of this case which the court below acquitted in the trial for the first instance (Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act). For the preliminary applicable provisions of Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, “Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act” was applied for the amendment of an indictment containing each addition of the facts charged as stated in the criminal charge column as stated in the conjunctive charge, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’

However, as seen below, inasmuch as the lower court’s conclusion that acquitted of the primary facts charged is maintained and found guilty of the ancillary facts charged, the lower judgment that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. The lower court held that the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine is based on the premise that the provision of a means of access, rather than the means for receiving a loan, constitutes “loan of access media” as provided by Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in cases where it can be deemed that another person can arbitrarily conduct electronic financial transactions using the means of access in return for a loan.