The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is whether or not the defendant used temporarily a deposit passbook and cash card, or if the defendant transferred it ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the defendant about the defendant, taking full account of the following: (a) whether or not the defendant had allowed him to use a deposit passbook and cash card; (b) whether or not the defendant transferred the means of access through a door-to-door engineer without knowing his/her identity and affiliation; and (c) there was no agreement on the deadline to return the means of access; and (d) whether or not the defendant had no balance in accordance with the details of the passbook transaction; and (b) there was

2. In the instant case where the Defendant consistently asserts that “When sending the agricultural passbook and cash card, to allow loans to be granted through the agricultural cooperative will be examined,” the Defendant sent the said passbook and the card through the name-free box’s reliance on the speech of the person who was not the victim, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the “transfer” under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act does not include simply lending the means of access or allowing temporary use (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16167, Jul. 5, 2012). In so doing, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the said passbook and card were completely transferred.

Even if examining the records of this case, the defendant received money and valuables by making the above passbook and card.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant promised to receive money or valuables, and the Defendant claims that the Defendant would receive a passbook and card after making a private person and paying fees (in the event of a loan, the head of the Tong and card). Considering that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is difficult to deem that the facts charged in this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the judge beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the Defendant is not guilty.