The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence of a fine of three million won imposed by the court below against the defendant (the suspended sentence of a fine of three million won) is too unhued.

2. Prior to a judgment on the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor ex officio, 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 other Acts in using and managing the means of access.” Article 49(4)1 of the same Act provides that “any person who transfers or acquires the means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison 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 Act is established as one of each means of access. However, where multiple means of access are transferred or acquired at once by one act, and each crime constitutes a crime of violation of several electronic financial transactions and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in that sense, since the defendant transferred the passbook under the name of the defendant and cash cards and postal cards in a lump sum, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and each crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act committed by the defendant, which had been established by transferring both the passbook and cash cards and postal cards in the name of the defendant, are in a mutually competitive relationship.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts recognized by the court as well as the summary of the evidence.