The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant was notified of a penalty of KRW 80,00,000 for the use of his personal information among the facts charged in the instant case, and paid it. As such, the Defendant should be sentenced to acquittal pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the crime of forgery and accompanying in electronic records, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The identity of facts charged or facts constituting an offense ought to be based on the Defendant’s act and social factual relations in mind with the legal function of the identity of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994). The penalty system under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act differs from the trial procedure of the court in that it provides special cases concerning punishment for a simple, prompt and appropriate handling of the case without prosecution for the person who pays the penalty by giving an opportunity to pay a certain amount of penalty by notification by the head of the police station, etc. prior to the criminal procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994).

In addition, the scope recognized as effective as a final and conclusive judgment following the payment of penalty shall be limited to the relevant offense itself and the offenses recognized as identical to the offense described in the reason for notification of penalty.

Therefore, an act done at the same time and place as the act of offense

Even if a criminal act committed beyond the identity of the same offense does not have the effect of the absence of a single objection equivalent to the final judgment according to the payment of the penalty (Supreme Court Decision 2002. Nov. 22, 2002).