The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, for five months, and for four months, for Defendant C.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, Defendant B, and C: 10 months) is too unhued and unreasonable.

Defendant

B and C The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In the event of transfer of a means of access in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (each violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act), one crime is established for each means of access. However, it is reasonable to interpret that each crime constitutes a mutually competitive relationship because the act of transfer of a number of means of access in lump sum constitutes a single act that commits several crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). According to the records, the Defendants may recognize the fact that each account opened is simultaneously transferred means of access, such as physical cards, OTP bios, and passwords. At the same time, each offense of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act with respect to the means of access that has been transferred is in a commercial concurrent relationship.

However, since the court below determined that each of the above crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is a single crime or a substantive concurrent relationship, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which affected the conclusion of judgment

Therefore, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

In conclusion, there exist grounds for ex officio reversal of the part concerning Defendant C and the part concerning the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by Defendants A and B among the judgment below, and the judgment below rendered a single sentence by treating the part concerning the ex officio reversal of Defendant A and B as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant B, C, and the prosecutor, and the judgment is again rendered as follows.

another judgment.