The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered against the defendant (the penalty of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall not transfer or acquire access media unless otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts in using and managing access media.

Article 49(4)1 of the same Act provides that “A person who transfers or acquires any access medium in violation of Article 6(3)1” shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20,000 won. The transfer or acquisition of the access medium under the above provision of the Act constitutes one crime by each access medium. However, the transfer or acquisition of a number of access media at once constitutes a single act of committing a violation of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions and Transactions and thus, each offense constitutes a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant appears to have transferred multiple access media at once through Kwikset service in the name of the Defendant with the passbook and cash card opened in the Agricultural Cooperative under the name of the Defendant, and the crime of violation of each electronic financial transaction law committed by the Defendant’s transfer of each access medium is in a mutually competitive relationship.

However, the court below erred in omitting commercial concurrence in applying the law to the defendant, and therefore the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.