The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The crime of transferring an access medium provided for in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established by one crime for each access medium. However, the act of transferring a number of access media in a lump sum is a case where several access media are used as a single act to commit a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret the Electronic Finance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). In this regard, the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Electronic Finance Act in the judgment below are as follows: (a) Defendant opened a post office account under the name of the Defendant around August 13, 2013; and (b) transferred an access medium for electronic finance by issuing Kwikset with a passbook connected to the above account through Kwikset’s service; and (c) ultimately, the act constitutes a simultaneous transfer of several access media and constitutes a violation of the Electronic Finance Act due to the transfer of each access medium, and thus, the lower court is in a commercial and substantive concurrent relationship.

In light of the above, it did not constitute an ordinary competition, which is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the transfer of access media, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment of the court below] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence acknowledged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows. The judgment of the court below is dismissed [2015 order 1405 order].