We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

(a) the sentence of the first instance judgment of the Prosecutor (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable;

B. The punishment of Defendant 1’s decision on KRW 1 (6 months of imprisonment) and the punishment of KRW 2’s decision on KRW 10 (2 months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

The appeal case against the judgment below's ex officio was joined in the first instance trial, and each of the offenses of the judgment below should be sentenced to a single punishment within the term of punishment for concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

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

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the improper argument by the prosecutor and the defendant, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the first and second judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 228(1), 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 229, 228(1), and 30 (a), Article 49(4)1, and 6(3)1 of the respective Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a transfer of an access medium: Provided, That Article 30 of the Criminal Act applies only to each of the crimes specified in Article 3-2(b) of the judgment of the court below among the crimes set forth in Article 1 of the Criminal Act);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (the act of transferring several access media in a lump sum) falls under the case where a person commits a violation of several Electronic Financial Transactions Act by a single act and each crime is in a mutually concurrent relationship;

It is reasonable to interpret (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, and Investigation Records No. 1065, Mar. 25, 201). Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crime No. 1 through No. 6 among the crimes No. 7 times.