The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) had no awareness of illegality since lending the passbook to the Defendant had been in violation of the law.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment

(2) The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the crime of transfer of the means of access under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established by one of the respective means of access. However, the act of transfer of several means of access at once constitutes a single act and constitutes a case where several crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act are committed. It is reasonable to interpret that each crime constitutes a commercial concurrent relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). In addition, even though the act of transfer of several means of access, such as passbooks, physical cards, etc., among the criminal facts in the judgment below, at the same time and at the same place, are in a commercial concurrent relationship, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, and thus the judgment below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that a person’s act of misunderstanding that one’s act did not constitute a crime under the law does not merely mean that the act of misunderstanding that one’s act was not punishable only when there are reasonable grounds for misunderstanding.