All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts was intended to receive a check from J for the purpose of using it for a crime under the direction of a telephone financial fraud assistance employee, and the Defendant does not constitute a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, since he did not intend to receive a check under the name of G from F, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and the check card in the name of G could not be used for a crime, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Even if the Defendant recognized that the part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was delivered with the body card under the name of G rather than that of G, this does not interfere with the Defendant’s intentional recognition of “the Defendant’s receipt of access media” as an error of the object of the elements of a crime, and as long as the Defendant kept the body card for the purpose of using it in the crime, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established and whether the said body card can be used for the crime is irrelevant to the nature of the above crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was arrested at the police station, which has driven away from subway stations by transmitting cream cards to subway stations. As long as the Defendant was on the part of his own possession after receiving the cream card, the period of possession was shorter as long as the Defendant was on the part of his own possession.

Even if an electronic financial transaction is deemed to fall under “storage” under Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.