The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won against the crime of embezzlement in the judgment of the court.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the court below against the defendant (on the market: a fine of one million won for embezzlement: a fine of one million won for each violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act provides that “No person shall transfer or acquire a means of access unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act in using and managing the means of access.” Article 49(4)1 of the same Act provides that “any person who has transferred or acquired a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.” The crime of transfer and acquisition of a means of access provided for in the above Act constitutes one crime per each means of access. However, the above act of transfer or acquisition of a number of means of access in a lump sum constitutes a single act that constitutes a crime of violating several electronic financial transactions and thus, each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to this case, it is reasonable to view that several means of access are transferred at one time among the Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 2, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the annexed Table 1 of the court below's judgment.

Therefore, each crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which has been established by transferring the means of access at once, is in a mutually competitive relationship.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that all the crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the transfer of each means of access listed in the respective list of crimes in the lower judgment are concurrent relations, and thereby aggravated concurrent crimes by the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal