The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 6(3)1 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions provides that “No person shall transfer or take over access media unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts in using or managing access media.” Article 49(4)1 of the same Act provides that “a person who transfers or takes over access media 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.” As such, the number of transfer of access media under the above provision of the Act is one crime committed by each access medium. However, the transfer of a number of access media at once constitutes a single act that constitutes a crime of violating the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions and Trade, and each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). According to the health team and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be aware that the defendant transferred the passbook and the physical card in the name of the defendant to the non-person in a lump sum on January 2015. Thus, the defendant's transfer of each access medium on the same day constitutes a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act for each access medium, and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is mutually competitive relationship.

However, the court below erred in treating the defendant as a single crime by omitting ordinary concurrence while applying the law to the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the pleading is made in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.