Defendant A among the judgment of the first instance, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the first instance sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant A, the prosecutor appealed respectively on the ground that the prosecutor is too uncompared and unreasonable, on the ground that Defendant A was too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the first instance sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) against Defendant B, the prosecutor appealeded against Defendant B on the ground that it is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. On April 22, 2015, the prosecutor omitted the decision to dismiss the public prosecution, filed an application for changes to the indictment with the purport of excluding the facts in the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in the attached Table No. 10, 11 among the facts charged in the instant case at the fifth trial of the first instance court on April 22, 2015, and the first instance court notified the decision to permit changes to the indictment.

However, an application for the amendment of the indictment in question must be deemed to completely revoke the indictment with respect to the partial withdrawal of the charge as to the violation of each Electronic Financial Transaction Act as stated in (2) No. 10 and 11 of the above attached list of crimes committed in a substantive concurrent relationship with the remaining charges.

The crime of acquiring the means of access provided for in Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is because one crime is established for each means of access.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). The first instance court omitted a trial on the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, even though it should have decided to dismiss the public prosecution in accordance with Article 328(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do1438 delivered on April 24, 1992, etc.). In this respect, the first instance judgment is no longer maintained.

B. In order to determine the violation of each of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act regarding the deposit passbooks listed in the annexed list (2) Nos. 8, 9, 19, and 20, the “means of access” under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the electronic financial transaction contract is concluded.