The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A, in six months of imprisonment, the defendant D shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and confiscation, and Defendant D: fine of 4 million won) declared by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine Defendant A’s grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the determination of Defendant A’s grounds for appeal.

Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall not transfer or acquire access media unless otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts in using and managing access media.

Article 49(4)1 of the same Act provides that “A person who transfers or acquires any access medium in violation of Article 6(3)1” shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20,000 won. The transfer or acquisition of the access medium under the above provision of the Act constitutes one crime by each access medium. However, the transfer or acquisition of a number of access media at once constitutes a single act of committing a violation of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions and Transactions and thus, each offense constitutes a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant A received several access media at one time by taking over the access media, such as passbook, physical card, and its password from the account opened in one bank in the name of K in the name of H around November 18, 2014, around November 18, 2014 at the same location, around November 18, 2014. The violation of each of the above access media by Defendant A is in a mutually competitive relationship.

However, the court below erred by omitting ordinary concurrence while applying the law to Defendant A. In this regard, Defendant A in the judgment of the court below.