The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

17,800,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by the prosecutor, each of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act stated in (2) Nos. 65, 71, and 73 at the net time of the crime list Nos. 1, 65, 71, and 73 was fully recognized by the statements of S, I, and R, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the above facts of the crime is erroneous

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment and additional collection charge 16.6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Before making ex officio decisions on the prosecutor's ex officio and the reasons for each appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor deleted Nos. 73 from among the facts charged against the defendant in the trial of the court of the party, re-ordinates the sequence No. 73 from among the facts charged against the defendant, and applied for changes in the indictment with the same content as the list No. 2 in the annexed crime No. 2, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, among the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, each violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act No. 65 and No. 71 in [Attachment 1] list of crimes listed in [Attachment 1] is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the revised charges, and this is also examined.

3. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts in the instant facts charged as to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act on each access medium (hereinafter “each access medium of this case”) Nos. 65,71 from among the instant facts charged, the lower court stated as follows: (a) there is no transaction details among the passbooks seized at the Defendant’s residence; and (b) the Defendant did not sell the passbook without transaction details after the establishment of the passbook in the police investigation process; and (c) the head of the passbook with transaction details was sold, but the head of the passbook with transaction details was sold, and thus, became the Defendant’s possession while recovering it due to the crime such as Bosing.