The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely took charge of raising funds by receiving a cash card from C, an accomplice, and did not have conspired with C, etc. to obtain a means of access or conduct electronic financial transactions using the means of access acquired by fraudulent or other illegal means. The Defendant’s act stated in the indictment is merely an access to an electronic device by inputting a legitimate authorized certificate and personal information, and thus does not constitute “a person who obtains a means of access by fraudulent or other illegal means or conducts electronic financial transactions by using the acquired means of access” under Article 49(1)4 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Management of Remaining Financial Transactions, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even if a person who has not directly shared part of the elements of a crime among the competitors, if it is acknowledged that a functional control through an essential contribution to a crime exists not just as a mere conspiracy, but also as a co-principal in view of the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. in the whole crime.

In this case, the means and attitudes of crimes, the number of participants and their tendency, and the time of crimes.