[1] In a case where multiple means of access are transferred in a lump sum and multiple electronic financial transactions are committed, the number of such crimes are committed (=commercial concurrence)

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that acquitted the above charges on the ground that both the facts constituting the crime of violating the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the facts charged of this case concerning the same date and time and several electronic media transferred at a place where the same facts charged are identical, and there are concurrent relations between them

[1] Articles 2 subparag. 10, 6(3), and 49(5)1 (see current Article 49(4)1) of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 9325, Dec. 31, 2008); Article 40 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 10, 6(3), and 49(5)1 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 9325, Dec. 31, 2008); Article 40 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2008No2926 Decided February 5, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 6 (3) of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 9325 of Dec. 31, 2008) provides that "no access medium shall be transferred, acquired, or pledged unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act." Article 49 (5) 1 of the same Act provides that "a person who transfers or acquires a means of access in violation of Article 6 (3) or who has created a pledge shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won." Thus, the crime of transfer of a means of access provided for in the above Act provides that only one crime is established for each means of access, provided that the act of transferring a number of means of access at once constitutes a single act of committing a violation of several electronic financial transactions, and it is reasonable to interpret that each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

The court below rendered a judgment of acquittal of the charges of this case on the ground that the facts charged in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the facts charged in this case are related to the same time, time, and several electronic media transferred by the defendant at the same place, and thus, the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal of the charges of this case. This decision of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)