The judgment below

Among them, the violation of each Electronic Financial Transactions Act of July 25, 2012 against Defendant A and August 29, 2012 against Defendant A, and Defendant.

1. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged of this case against the Defendants, and sentenced Defendant A to confiscation under one year and six months of imprisonment and Nos. 1 through 7, and sentenced Defendant B to confiscation under August and No. 36 through 39. The Defendants appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing. Prior to the remanding of the case, the lower court convicted Defendant A of all of the facts charged of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act between July 25, 2012 and August 29, 2012, each of the electronic financial transaction acts committed against Defendant A, and each of the electronic financial transaction acts committed against Defendant B on August 2, 2012, and each of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act committed against the Defendants on July 16, 2012 (hereinafter “instant part”), and sentenced Defendant A to the remainder of imprisonment with prison labor and the confiscation under subparagraphs 1 and 4, 2, and 7, and 7, respectively.

In other words, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the portion of the judgment of the party prior to remand, and the Supreme Court reversed the above acquittal portion on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the transfer and acquisition of the means of access under the Electronic

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the reversed acquittal.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles was withdrawn from the trial after remanding the case) is too unreasonable.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below on the acquittal portion of the above not guilty portion (hereinafter “the part of this case”) should be sentenced separately. Thus, without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the part of the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

[Judgment which is used again for the part of this case] The court of this case.