The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on factual mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant transferred a physical card to a person with no name, who was aware of the fact that he was to lend a loan, and only notified the password, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the above grounds for appeal ex officio, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment on May 12, 2017 with labor for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, and was released on September 28, 2017 and then released on September 23, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2017, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes around November 7, 2017.

According to the above facts, since each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant does not constitute a punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier, it cannot be aggravated for repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act. Rather, it constitutes concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it should be sentenced in consideration of the equity between the cases where the court rendered a judgment simultaneously with the crime of a final and conclusive judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not deal with concurrent crimes on each of the crimes of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the aggravation of repeated crimes and the treatment of concurrent crimes, and such illegality affected the judgment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, however, despite the existence of the above ex officio grounds for reversal, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is subject to the judgment of this court, and thus,

The following circumstances, which can be known by the record, i.e., the defendant at the time of investigation by the prosecutor.