The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Each of the facts charged in this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. For the following reasons, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that each of the facts stated in its judgment was guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The Defendant was aware that the proxy form in the name of the limited company C, which was created by “B”, was true, and did not interfere with the Defendant’s opening of the account by fraudulent means, with the knowledge that the proxy form in the name of the limited company C was opened under the direction.

2) The Defendant violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is merely a person who merely opened a bank account, not a person who has ownership or right to dispose of an access medium connected to the relevant account.

Therefore, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of “transfer” of access media.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

According to the records, the court of original judgment shall serve a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by means of serving public notice in accordance with the special provisions on the procedure of trial in the first instance under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and sentenced a judgment by conducting a trial in the absence of the defendant. The defendant filed an appeal and filed a request for recovery of the right of appeal, and the court of original judgment

According to the above facts, there are grounds for a request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for the defendant's failure to attend the trial of the court below due to the lack of reasons

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015; 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case, and is therefore subject to paragraph (3) below.