The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The owner of money deposited in a financial account after misunderstanding the facts of the defendant or misunderstanding the legal principles (related to embezzlement) on the gist of the grounds for appeal, is the nominal owner of the passbook and the victim entrusted the said money to the nominal owner of the passbook.

Even if the ownership cannot be claimed, the nominal owner of the passbook is not in the position of the custodian in embezzlement.

In addition, the name of the passbook was the custodian.

Even if the victim's illegal gambling site is operated, it is stored by the illegal cause salary, which is the profit acquired by the illegal Internet gambling site.

Therefore, it is not embezzlement if the defendant conspired with the nominal owner of the passbook and voluntarily withdraws and uses it.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no provision punishing “a person who knowingly lends an access medium to a crime” in the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015), which was enforced at the time of the Defendant’s crime, on the charge of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act that the Defendant used access medium, such as passbook, to H, on the ground that there was no provision punishing the Defendant. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the sentence sentenced by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority is made, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground for appeal by the prosecutor.