1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3.Provided, That this judgment shall not apply.

1. The main text of the grounds for appeal is that the respective punishment of the lower court (the 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, and the 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the determination.

The first and second judgments against the defendant were pronounced, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and the court decided to jointly examine all the above appeal cases. Since each of the offenses of the judgment below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

【Reasons for Dismissals of the Judgment】 Facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence recognized by the court, and summary of evidence are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) A quasi-Robbery teacher: Articles 335, 333, and 31(1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) The transfer of each means of access: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

(c) Points of embezzlement: Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act;

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (the punishment imposed on a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the transfer of a heavier number between violations of the said Act and a secret number);

3. Selection of punishment for breach of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the crime of embezzlement

4. Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes within the extent that the punishment is added up the long-term punishment of a quasi-Robbery teacher with the largest punishment).

5. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation are as follows.