The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence 1 to 7 shall be confiscated, respectively.

1. On the grounds of appeal of this case, the defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant is a domestic first offender, and each of the crimes of this case prosecuted by the defendant is merely limited to the defendant's acquisition of the means of access for electronic financial transactions over three occasions during this framework, and the defendant's direct profits from the crime are deemed to have not been realized.

However, this case is the case where the defendant acquired the means of access to withdraw the amount of damage acquired from the so-called singishing crime, and even if the period of participation is short and the number of crimes is not high, in light of the fact that the defendant kept the amount of damage from the singishing at the time of arrest of the defendant, the defendant appears to be not merely a means of solicitation or delivery of passbook, but a withdrawal of the entire singishing organization, and thus, the degree of the defendant's participation cannot be deemed to be less.

Due to the nature of the singing crime committed in the form of the occupied organization, circumstances where it is difficult to arrest the entire organization or punish by specifying the whole content of the crime, and the adverse effect of the singing crime on the whole society should also be considered.

In full view of all such circumstances and other circumstances as the motive for the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime was committed, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., and the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and pleadings, the Prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is reasonable, while the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable, as it appears that the Defendant’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.