All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by January 3, 2019, prosecutor 1) regarding the misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part) and the Defendant’s act of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had stored, delivered, and distributed the means of access even if he did not acquire exclusive possession for the purpose of using the means of access. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged by the Defendant was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine. 2) The sentence (eight months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of acquiring possession of the above physical card and distributing it was difficult to view that, in full view of the purpose of Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act with respect to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on January 3, 2019, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act through “the custody, delivery, and distribution of access media” was completed at the time of acquisition of de facto control of the means of access on the premise that possession of the means of access. In so determining, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the contents of relevant statutes and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so argued by the prosecutor.