The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In the application for the resumption of pleadings submitted as of April 6, 2015, the Defendant asserted a mistake of fact to the effect that he denies the conspiracy with other accomplices.

However, the appellate brief submitted by the defendant's public defender within the period for submitting the appellate brief is written only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and no ground of mistake exists.

Therefore, even if the defendant's written application for the resumption of argument submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal has asserted any misunderstanding of facts as above and has stated it in the court, such appeal does not constitute a ground for appeal. Therefore, it is not judged

2. Prior to judgment on the grounds for appeal, Article 6(3)1 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015) provides that “No person shall transfer or acquire the means of access, unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act, 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 20 million won.” Thus, the crime of transfer or acquisition of the means of access provided for in the above legal provision is established as one crime 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 means of access are committed by a single act and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). Therefore, the Doctrine and the Defendant’s criminal facts under paragraph (4) of the lower judgment.