The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The term "transfer" under the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act does not include merely the act of causing a means of access or allowing a person to temporarily use a means of access. However, the defendant merely transferred cash cards and passbooks to a third party by falling under the end of a person without a name that caused a loan, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant transferred it to a third party. In addition, there was no criminal intent that the defendant transferred cash cards, etc.

Judgment

1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is based on the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 9325, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “Electronic Financial Transactions Act”).

Article 49(5)1 of the Act punishs the act of transferring or taking over a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the Act. In the event that the delivery of a means of access, such as a deposit passbook, cash card, and password, is merely a delegation of the temporary use of the means of access, it does not constitute “transfer” of the means of access under Article 6(3)1 of the Act. However, in light of Article 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act’s legislative purpose to clarify the legal relationship of electronic financial transactions to ensure the safety and reliability of the transaction (i.e., the motive and background behind the delivery of the means of access, relationship with the other party to the delivery, number of the means of access, behavior or circumstance after the delivery, and whether there was any agreement on the subject, amount, interest rate, method of receipt of the means of access, etc., if determined objectively, it can be said that the delivery of the means of access can be arbitrarily made by any other person in return for the receipt of the means of access.