The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (four million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment of the ex officio judgment prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing.

A. The crime of transfer or acquisition of an access medium under Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established by each access medium. However, the act of transfer or acquisition of a number of access media at once constitutes a single act and constitutes a crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each crime constitutes a mutually competitive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). (b) According to the records, the fact that the Defendant transferred two physical cards to a person who is not his/her name at once and at the place specified in the facts charged is recognized. As such, the Defendant committed several offenses of violation of the Multiple Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each of the above offenses constitutes a mutually competitive relationship.

Therefore, the defendant committed a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes committed in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, on the grounds that the court below's ex officio reversals the above Paragraph 2. The court below's judgment is reversed and it is decided as follows through pleading

[Grounds for the new judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of evidence are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order.