The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

37,744,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 37,744,00 won additionally collected) is too unreasonable.

The same year from January 4, 2019, in collusion with the Defendant and B

3. Until May, 300, a private Internet gambling site is opened for profit-making purpose by operating a gambling site. Of the above period, a speculative business is conducted in the above gambling space without obtaining permission from the commissioner of a district police agency, or a “sports soil” gambling program is operated in the above gambling space. It should be deemed that a single act constitutes several crimes and constitutes a commercial competition relationship.

However, the court below decided as a substantive concurrent crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Opening of gambling, etc.), the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Fraudulent Act, and the relation of opening of gambling spaces, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In the case of the transfer and acquisition of a means of access in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, only one crime is established for each individual means of access. However, it is reasonable to interpret that each crime constitutes a commercial concurrent relationship because the act of the transfer and acquisition at once constitutes a single act where several means of access are committed against several crimes of electronic financial transactions.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). According to the records, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the passbook and the cash withdrawal card connected to the account indicated in the facts charged are simultaneously taken over, an authorized certificate, and an OTP device. At the same time, the crime of violation of each electronic financial transaction act regarding the means of access that has been taken over is in a commercial concurrent

However, since the court below determined that each of the above crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is a single crime or a substantive concurrent relationship, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of crimes of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which affected the conclusion of judgment

The judgment of the court below is correct.