We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The first deliberation type (3 million won) of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The gist of the facts charged and the prosecutor of the law applicable to the following charged facts (including the facts charged revised in the trial) filed a public prosecution by applying Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (see attached statutes) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case (including the facts charged revised in the trial).

No person shall transfer or acquire any access medium for electronic financial transactions or set up a pledge thereon.

Nevertheless, around June 1, 2017, the Defendant, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsung Samsung 1-dong Kwikset apartment guard room, opened a copy of the Cock Card, a new bank account (B) with Kwikset Service article, via Kwikset Service article, and notified the password by telephone communications around that time.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred electronic financial access media.

B. The Defendant recognized his responsibility from the investigative agency to the party members, while having recognized his responsibility, the Defendant changed to the purport that “the contact was made with the recruitment company found through the NVVV, etc., and the person in charge of the recruitment company should find it possible to work through a credit rating inquiry of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant’s provision of the Defendant’s physical card and password was back after credit inquiry. As such, the Defendant’s provision of the Defendant’s physical card and password changed to the effect that Kwikset service engineer sent from the recruitment company was sent to the recruitment company, and the Defendant merely sent the password to the recruitment company and did not contact the recruitment company and did not return it.”

Dorless, the court shall be fair and fair.

The prosecutor's facts charged and the evidence supporting the prosecution's various disagreements, contradictions, and questions presented in support of them, and rather, the defendant's assertion and evidence are not an attitude to take criminal court to demand a strict certification on the premise of uncertainty.