All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

In each of the crimes in the first instance judgment of the defendant in the 2018 Highest 553 case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (the first instance court: quasi-indecent act by force, fraud, larceny part; imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment with prison labor for one year; imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court; imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Violence and Emergency Medical Services Act; imprisonment with prison labor for four months; imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of the second instance and imprisonment with prison labor for one year); and imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes of the second instance court for three months; and imprisonment with prison labor for one year for each of the other crimes).

B. On the ground that Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act does not expressly state the type or method of “price” and does not stipulate the type and method thereof, as stated in the facts charged, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s use of the physical card in his name constitutes the “loan” of the means of access, and that the Defendant’s use of the physical card in his name exceeds the credit rating through false transaction performance as stated in the facts charged. 2) The sentence of the first instance court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 ex officio rendered a judgment of the first and second original judgments on the defendant, and the defendant appealed against the first and second original judgments, and the prosecutor respectively filed an appeal against the first and second original judgments. The court rendered a decision to concurrently examine each of the above appellate cases. Since each of the first and second original judgments is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence should be rendered pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the first and the second original judgments cannot be maintained as they are, since they are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities before being amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 is a sexual crime under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or a sex crime subject to children and juveniles under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter collectively referred to as "sexual crime").