The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (1.5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the facts charged of this case prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was presented from the person who was unaware of his name that “I will lend the passbook to KRW 400,000 per week,” and the Defendant borrowed Kwikset Service to the person who was unaware of his name through the post office passbook in the name of the Defendant, and the physical card, password, etc. related thereto, at a place where the location is unknown on November 201, 2013.

B. Legal doctrine 1) The principle of no punishment without the law requires that a crime and punishment be prescribed by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from the arbitrary exercise of the State’s penal authority. In light of such purport, a penal provision should be interpreted strictly, and an excessively expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of an explicit penal provision to the disadvantage of the accused is impermissible as it is contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law. 2) The former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “former Electronic Financial Transactions Act”) prohibits “a person who borrows or lends a means of access in return for consideration or for consideration” under Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “former Electronic Financial Transactions Act”) prohibits “a person who borrows or lends a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act” (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015, 2015). 20). 200.