The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Defendant (1) thought that the Nong Bank would obtain a loan from the Nonghyup Bank, the Defendant misrepresented that he was a person in charge of the lending of the Nonghyup Bank. The Defendant 1 found two physical cards connected each to the Nonghyup Bank and the Enterprise Bank (hereinafter “each of the instant physical cards”) and provided the password by telephone, and the Defendant did not transfer each of the instant physical cards.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2) The Prosecutor’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) Ex officio is examined prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

The crime of transferring an access medium under Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established by one crime for each access medium. However, the act of transferring a number of access media at once constitutes a single act of committing a violation of several Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each crime is in a commercial concurrent relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). According to the records of this case, the Defendant may recognize that the Defendant sent each of the instant physical cards to a person whose name is unknown using Kwikset’s service around August 2015.

Therefore, the crime of violation of each of the electronic financial transactions of this case is several crimes, which constitute a single act, and is an ordinary concurrent relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

However, each of the instant violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is in the relationship of a single crime.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, even if there are the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is judged below.

(ii)..