The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the defendant's improper argument of sentencing.

Crimes related to the access media provided for in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act are established by one crime for each access medium. However, as mentioned above, the act of keeping several access media at once constitutes a single act that constitutes a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each crime constitutes a mutually competitive relationship.

Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s act of keeping the card in custody on December 8, 2015 and December 30, 2015, constitutes a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by one of the following: Provided, That the act of keeping the card in custody on a one-time basis at the same time on December 30, 2015 constitutes a single act of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each of the said temporary crimes constitutes a mutually concurrent relationship.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below judged each act of the judgment below as a single crime. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes related to the access media provided in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the following decision is made through a change of opinion.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.