The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, Defendant B’s fine of 6,00,000 won, and Defendant C’s fine of 4.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because each of the punishments (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, confiscation, 23.7 million won, a fine of 6 million won, a fine of 3.5 million won, a fine of 3.5 million won, and a fine of 4 million won in case of Defendant C) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too uneasible.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

In the event of the transfer of a means of access in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, only one crime is established for each means of access. However, since the act of transferring several means of access at once constitutes a single act to commit several violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, each crime is interpreted to be in a mutually competitive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). ① Defendant A and C are corporate banks, agricultural cooperatives, agricultural community cooperatives, Daegu Bank, Daegu Bank, and new bank account, passbooks, security cards, passwords, etc. of Q AF bank, community credit cooperatives, Daegu Bank, Daegu Bank, and Daegu Bank, Daegu Bank, 100, Busan Bank, Daegu Bank, and 15, Busan Bank, Daegu Bank, and 10, Busan Bank, 15, Busan Bank, 15, 15, 201, and 4.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by omitting judgment on the relation to each of the crimes in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is without examining the prosecutor's respective arguments on unfair sentencing against the defendants and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.