The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 17 shall be confiscated.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Before judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act provides that "no person shall transfer or acquire the means of access, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts in using and managing the means of access." Article 49 (4) 1 of the same Act provides that "the person who has transferred or acquired the means of access in violation of Article 6 (3) 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won." The above provision of the Act provides that "the person who has transferred or acquired the means of access in violation of Article 6 (3) 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won. The crime of transfer or acquisition of the means of access provided for in the above Act is established only one crime for each means

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect, since the defendant acquired several means of access of the same nominal owner at the same time, such as the statement in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below, and the violation of each electronic financial transaction act committed by the defendant through the acquisition of several means of access of the same nominal owner, such as the statement in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below, are in a mutually competitive relationship. However, since the court below erred by omitting ordinary concurrence while applying statutes, the court below erred by omitting ordinary concurrence.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of this and the facts charged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows.