The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a defendant B, for six months, respectively.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the first instance court (one year and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Inasmuch as misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part against the Defendant) the passbook is abused for various criminal acts, such as Bohishing, etc., and there is a need to punish transfer and takeover of the passbook, the meaning of “acquisition” should be interpreted broadly.

B) As Defendant B recognized and transferred the instant physical card from the card transferor, Defendant B’s intent is recognized. (2) The first instance sentencing of Defendant B on the grounds that the sentencing of Defendant B is too uneased and unfair.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor, in the first instance trial, maintains the facts charged as to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the acquisition of the means of access against which the Defendants were acquitted at the court of first instance, as its primary charges, and subsequently, in addition to the facts charged as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime among the following (the part of the charge (defendants) the prosecutor added the facts charged as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime, and files an application for amendment to the indictment to add “Fraud” and “Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act” to the name of the crime, and the applicable provisions of the law, as the subject of judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the part of the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained.

Meanwhile, each of the facts charged in the first instance trial and the facts charged in the ancillary charge are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the ancillary charges should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment against Defendant A cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor’s acquisition of the means of access violates the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.