The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Fraud part) have transferred the means of access to electronic financial transactions to Defendant A, but Defendant A merely transferred the said means of access to entertainment room or scambling with knowledge that the said means of access was lawfully used in the operation of entertainment room or scambing, and did not know whether the said means of access was used in the instant fraud. Thus, Defendant A did not directly engage in the instant fraud, and even if it was merely an aiding and abetting crime, the lower court found Defendant A as a co-principal of the instant fraud and convicted Defendant A of the crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Defendants’ taking over the means of electronic financial transactions from the same person on the same day, as stated in the attached list of crimes (2) among the crimes committed in the judgment of the court below, as stated in the attached Table of Crimes No. 3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, constitutes a case where a single act constitutes several crimes at the same time and constitutes a single act, and thus constitutes several crimes, the court below erred and punished the Defendants as a substantive concurrent crimes or omitted the application of the above concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, and this is examined below.

3. The defendant A-.