The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the degree of participation, the Defendant merely received passbook, cash card, etc. from Kwikset Service Articles as stated in the facts charged and delivered them to R according to the direction of R, and thus, constitutes a co-principal who is not a co-principal in light of the degree of participation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act with respect to the acquisition of an ex officio means of access constitutes one crime. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of acquiring several means of access in a lump sum constitutes a single act that constitutes a crime of violating several electronic financial transactions and each crime constitutes a commercial concurrent relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010. According to the records in this case, the Defendant acquired three means of access, including a new bank passbook (H) and cash card and an OTP card connected to the Defendant on October 2014. On November 10, 2014, the Defendant acquired six means of access, including passbooks (T), Nonghyup (U), and cash card connected to the Defendant, and an OTP card, etc., under the name of the limited company on November 10, 2014. In applying the above legal principles, each of the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by acquiring the means of access under the name of G and the means of access under the name of the limited liability company and S, should be deemed to have a commercial concurrence relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held that all of the crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act are concurrent relations is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes in the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.