The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibiting the transfer or acquisition of a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the same Act, claiming legal principles. As such, the act of sending cash withdrawal cards, etc. for the purpose of obtaining loans is included in the concept of “transfer” under each of the above provisions.

B. The Defendant claiming mistake of facts did not specify the specific time, place, method, etc. to receive a cash withdrawal card, etc. and sent cash withdrawal cards, etc. to the needy to obtain the loan, and thus, the Defendant may be found to have the intent to transfer the means of access.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits the act of transferring or taking over means of access in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the same Act. In general, the act of transferring rights or goods, etc. to others shall be subject to strict interpretation of penal provisions, and the interpretation of penal provisions shall be strict and shall not be permitted in principle under the principle of no punishment without law. It treats transfer and lease under the Civil Act as separate concepts under the Civil Act. In order to actively cope with crimes using the so-called “defed passbook,” the amendment of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act by Act No. 9325 on December 31, 2008 (Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act). In light of the fact that Article 49(4)1 of the same Act newly established a prohibition and punishment provision on “the act of borrowing or lending means of access via payment (Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act), the “transfer” under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall not include simply

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16167 Decided July 5, 2012). Accordingly, loans are extended.