The judgment below

Among the defendant A and B, the part concerning the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 1-2(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the fact (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the acquisition of the Z card in its name) is that the Z will lend the card “one point to 600,000 won if the card was lent for three days from the person in the name of the Z.

“” only delivers Kwikset Service Articles with the intention of lending one’s name cards to receive money, and there was no intention to transfer ownership or right of disposal on a conclusive basis.

Therefore, the defendant's act of receiving the above two copies of the card does not constitute "acquisition of an access medium" as provided by Article 49 (4) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Nevertheless, the court below pronounced guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment, four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to Defendant A’s violation of each electronic financial transaction law due to the acquisition of the card in the name of R, S, T, U,V, and W, and Defendant B’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act), R, S, T, U,V, and W (hereinafter “the card titleholder of this case”) were de facto transferred to the Defendants by delivering the card in their name to the Defendants without their intention to get back the card.

Therefore, each act of the Defendants, who received the card from the holders of the instant card, constitutes “acquisition of an access medium” under Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.