The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be transferred to the High Government District Court of the Republic of Korea.

1. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment below, and at the same time filed an application for transfer to the effect that the court below violated territorial jurisdiction, and this paper examines the violation of territorial jurisdiction.

According to the article 4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, territorial jurisdiction is to be the place of crime, the address, residence or present location of the defendant.

However, the summary of the facts charged of this case is that “the defendant opened an account under the name of the defendant at the Goyang-gu Sodong Station in Gyeyang-gu, So far, he violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by transferring the physical card, which is the means of access, as an electronic card at that time.” Since the Electronic Financial Transactions Act separates the transfer and the acquisition of the means of access, the crime of this case is an ancient time, which is the place where the means of access is transferred.

In addition, since the defendant's domicile from the time of institution of prosecution to the date of ancient cities, in this case, the place of crime, the address and domicile of the defendant, and the present location at the time of institution of prosecution is not within the jurisdiction of the Daegu District Court resident support in the original instance.

In addition, the fraud crime committed by the accused using the means of access was committed at the time of residence, but this is not related to this case and Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the consolidation of territorial jurisdiction is not possible under Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Meanwhile, according to Article 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court shall not make a declaration of lack of territorial jurisdiction without a request of the defendant, and the request for lack of territorial jurisdiction shall be made before the statement of the accused case is made.

Even if the court of first instance did not have territorial jurisdiction over this case at the time of prosecution, the defect of violation of territorial jurisdiction is cured by the defendant's statement against the accused case without application for violation of territorial jurisdiction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do2474 delivered on December 26, 1997, see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2474 delivered on December 26, 199).