The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, and pursuant to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the facts constituting an offense, summary of evidence, and the application of statutes must be specified in the grounds for the judgment of conviction, and where any one of them is omitted in the grounds for the judgment of conviction, it constitutes a ground for reversal as a violation of law that affected the judgment under Article 361-5 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8664, Dec. 13, 2011). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below only stated only the facts constituting an offense and the application of statutes in the grounds for the judgment of conviction, and omitted the summary of evidence. In this regard,

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

[Dao-written judgment] The criminal facts recognized by this court as a criminal history are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's oral statement in court;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Details of deposit transactions;

1. Application of statutes to customer information inquiry lists and details of transactions;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime in this case, and that he suffers from spine copia due to the age of 76 years.