The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A smartphone (SM-A500S) with seized smartphone (No. 1).

1. The sentence (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the crime of transfer or takeover of the access media under Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established by examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the crime of transfer or takeover of the access media under Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the same Act is established by one crime committed by each access medium: Provided, That the act of transfer or takeover of several access media in a lump sum constitutes a case where several access media are committed by one act

It is reasonable to interpret (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). The defendant, like the list of offenses (1) in the attached Form No. 11, on January 11, 2016, four passbooks, four cash cards, four check cards, four check cards, and each password connected to an account in the name of F; one passbook connected to an account in the name of AD on January 15, 2016; one cash card, one check, and one check number connected to an account in the name of F; one cash card, one check, and one check connected to the account in the name of LB on February 29, 2016; and one account connected to the account in the name of F; and one cash card, one check, one check card, and one personal identification card, and each of the above facts of the two crimes can be recognized that each of the two crimes can be committed under the mutual competition between the two crimes.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the judgment as to the relation of acceptance of crimes in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The judgment of the court below regarding facts constituting an offense and the gist of evidence recognized by this court.