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 the grounds for appeal: Sentencing (a fine of three million won is imposed);

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1) On the ground of the 1st destruction: A prosecutor who violated the principle of no accusation shall apply Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13929, Jan. 27, 2016) to the facts charged of the transfer and acquisition of the means of access. The lower court recognized the crime of violation of Article 49(4)2 and 6(3)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Distribution of the means of access when applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes even if all the facts charged are recognized, the lower court may no longer maintain any further because it erred in the misunderstanding of the principle of no accusation. 2) On the ground of the 2nd destruction: The crime of transfer of the means of access provided for in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established per each means of access. However, the act of transferring multiple means of access at once constitutes a single act and constitutes a crime of multiple electronic financial transactions and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that each crime is in a commercial competition relationship.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). However, the lower court did not regard the act of acquiring or acquiring physical cards (Article 2(a) and passwords (Article 2(e) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) simultaneously as the ordinary concurrent relationship, but did not regard the act of acquiring or acquiring physical cards as the ordinary concurrent relationship, and did not mean that the act would be the substantive concurrent relationship.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

B. In full view of the determination of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment is not significant, the Defendant’s completion of prison life due to the previous conviction of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the family members to be supported, and other factors of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is accepted.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below has a ground for ex officio reversal, and the defendant's appeal is also justified, and Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable