The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The statement made by the victim K that the defendant suffered bodily injury from the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (the point of special injury and each violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) 1) that he was assaulted by the defendant to be sweet or to be sweeted by the sweet, is inconsistent with the statements of the relevant persons who observed the situation at the time, and according to the diagnosis of the injury and the photographs on the part of the bodily injury, etc., it is inconsistent with the fact that the upper part of the body was not the heat to the degree of the wound, but the degree of the sweetion, and it is physically impossible in light of the structure drawings or respective statements of the place of occurrence prepared by the witness I and L of the court below. Thus, the statement is credibility.

It is difficult to see it.

B) In addition, the “hazardous goods” as referred to in Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective nature and method of use of the goods. In the case of an friendly acid appearing in the investigation records of this case, it cannot be deemed that it falls under the items that can kill people, and in the case of an elimic acid above the cremation, there is no physical evidence that could specify the objective nature of the eliminium, the lower court recognized it as an object dangerous to the above elimin and the eliminium, and applied the special injury crime to the Defendant.

C) As such, although the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim K, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim K, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “hazardous goods” in the crime of special injury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant was in violation of each electronic financial transaction law and issued a passbook, card, password, etc. under the name of the Defendant to receive a return when the loan is executed by deceiving the borrower to provide the loan to the least person without the name. This is merely a matter of entrusting the temporary use of an access medium to the person without the name. This is an exclusive use of an access medium.