All of the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B for one year and six months, and Defendant B for six years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the court below 1 and 2 against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

The first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for four years and confiscation for two years: Imprisonment for eight months.

B. Defendant B (1) With respect to each fraud in the first and second instances of mistake of facts, Defendant B did not have awareness of Bosing.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s first and second sentence against Defendant B is too unreasonable during the sentencing.

The first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months; Six months;

C. The first instance court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant U is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (1) The judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful: Defendant A, B ex officio, and 1-B of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the case

Crimes shall be regarded as crimes.

The act of keeping, delivering, and distributing multiple electronic financial means of access in a lump sum while violating prohibited provisions under Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act constitutes a single act that constitutes a crime of violating several electronic financial transactions and thus, each crime constitutes a mutually competitive relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). In light of the first instance court’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, several means of access listed in the separate sheet of crimes (2), Nos. 2-3, 4-5, and 6-7 in the separate sheet of crimes (2), among the cases of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, are acquired as a single act, respectively. Thus, each of these violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is in a mutually competitive relationship.

Nevertheless, the first instance court did not regard this part as an ordinary competition, but did not regard this part as an ordinary competition, and all of them considered that there is a substantive competition relationship, and therefore I aggravated the concurrent crimes.

In this respect, the first judgment can no longer be maintained.

(2) The illegality of the sentence of confiscation of stolen goods of the first instance court: Defendant A, and the first instance court’s sentence of confiscation No. 11 (cash KRW 8.10,00) against Defendant A is also examined.

Considering the circumstances of seizure under subparagraph 11, Defendant A, who was arrested as an offender in the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, has now been arrested.