The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1, No. 43, and No. 2.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant does not have any fact that he has kept one check card in the name of CM as stated in attached Table 144.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the Nos. 1 to 43, and 2 of the first offense in the original decision) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

(a) No person charged with this part of the facts charged may borrow or lend a means of access, or store, deliver or distribute a means of access, knowing that he/she is to be used for a crime or to be used for a crime.

In 2018, the Defendant had been well aware of the method of committing the crime of Bosing using another person's physical card, because the Defendant had been sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. by deceiving the amount of damage through deception in collusion with the employees of Bosing at around 2018.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, upon receiving a proposal from a person under whose name the Defendant was named “to pay allowances if he collects and delivers another person’s check to the place where the Defendant directed,” and accepted it, followed by the instructions of the person under whose name the Defendant received, and then kept one copy of the DNA Bank CMF card in accordance with the order of the person under whose name the Defendant was named as indicated in [Attachment Table 1] No. 44, around April 1, 2020.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment of the court below and the court below, as stated in Section 145 of the annexed Table 145, C, instead of the physical card in its name, it is recognized that C, as recorded in Section 145 of the annexed Table 145, had the Defendant receive and keep it. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in Section 1-44 of the annexed Table 1 of the annexed Table 2020, the Defendant kept one copy of the DNA bank card in the name of CM.