The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

In the event of the transfer of a means of access in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, one crime is established for each of the respective means of access. However, the act of transferring a number of means of access at once constitutes one act and constitutes a single act of committing several violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each crime is in a mutually concurrent relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). This legal doctrine equally applies to the case where several means of access are delivered at once, and in other cases, one crime is established for each of the means of access.

In the instant case, around 11:00 on August 31, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received and kept a physical card Nos. 1 in the 80-ro 1 unit located in the off-gu Seoul Mapo-gu World Cup No. 80 1 unit; (b) around 11:30 on the same day, the Defendant received and kept a two physical card in the same place as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached list; (c) around 14:00 on the same day, the Defendant received and kept three physical cards in the same place as listed in the attached list of crimes.

Therefore, as long as the defendant has received and kept each of the above physical cards, the crime of violation of each electronic financial transaction act on each of the physical cards listed in the annexed crime list committed by the defendant is not a regular competition relationship, but a substantive concurrent relationship.

I would like to say.

However, the lower court determined that each of the above crimes of electronic financial transactions was in a mutually competitive relationship.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relation of acceptance of crimes in violation of each of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is delivered above.