The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and by a fine of ten million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of three years, a fine of ten million won, a probation order for one year, a community service order for 80 hours, a confiscation, and an additional collection of 544,59,22 won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor ex officio, Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act provides that "no person shall transfer or acquire the means of access unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts in using and managing the means of access." Article 49(4)1 of the same Act provides that "the person who has transferred or acquired the means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won." Thus, the crime of transfer or acquisition of the means of access provided for in the above Act provides that one crime is established for each means of access, and the act of transfer or acquisition at once constitutes a case where several means of access are committed by a single act and each crime constitutes a case where several electronic financial transactions are committed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant appears to have taken over each of the cards and passbooks entered in the name of bank (bank name card, card number and account number) Nos. 19 through 21 in the annexed crime list 4 (Access Media Receipt Details) attached to the court below three times from February 2015 to February 16, 2000, each of the above cards and passbooks entered in the name “name bank (bank name card, card number and account number” and “title holder”, and the Defendant’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act established by the Defendant’s acquisition of each of the cards and passbooks as well as each of the above through the transfer of passbooks is in a mutually competitive relationship. However, the court below applied the statutes to the Defendant.