We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the respective punishment of the original judgment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, this Court tried at a concurrent hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses committed by the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence is to be rendered pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and it is again decided as follows.

In other words, the criminal facts and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court, as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts; Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (i.e., the delivery of the means of access based on the promise on October 10, 2018 and recognition of the use of a crime)

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is not sufficient to be committed as a systematic and planned crime, and the defendant is committed as the same kind of crime.