The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is difficult to believe that the defendant's statement that the defendant would receive a return of the passbook from the transferee of the passbook in the name of the defendant, and even if the defendant believed such remarks, the defendant merely sent the passbook to the transferee of the passbook in the first call through Kwikset service without agreement on the time, place, etc. of return with the transferee of the passbook, so it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant transferred the passbook through Kwikset service. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor integrated two concurrent charges into one of the two concurrent charges, and applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment to which Article 40 of the Criminal Act is added to the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act, and the subject of the adjudication is changed by permitting it. Thus, the judgment of the court below on the changed facts charged in the instant case cannot be maintained any more.

However, there are reasons for ex officio reversal as above.

Even if prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of judgment of modified charges, this paper will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

(a) No person charged is allowed to transfer a means of access for electronic financial transactions;

Nevertheless, on May 2014, the Defendant sent the test passbook to the Defendant’s residence from his name in Yangsan-si C, Dong 103 to his name, who was the Defendant’s residence, and accepted it through Kwikset service article, and sent the passbook and cash card, which are linked respectively to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (D, F) and the post office account (E) in the name of the Defendant, and sent the password to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the means of access for electronic financial transactions.

B. The probative value of evidence 1 is a judge.