The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) and Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act “the act of lending the means of access with consideration” should be deemed to include the case where the act of lending the means of access was committed under the condition of promising the acceptance of consideration. However, on the other hand, the lower court acquitted him of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as of July 26, 2013, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The principle of no punishment without law requires that crimes and penalties be determined by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from arbitrary exercise of the state penal authority.

In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the explicit penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant as it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

(1) Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “former Electronic Financial Transactions Act”) prohibits “a person who borrows or lends a means of access in return for consideration or for consideration.” Article 49(4)2 of the same Act punished “a person who borrows or lends a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)2.” However, the amended Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “Revised Electronic Financial Transactions Act”) prohibits “a person who borrows or lends a means of access in violation of Article 6(3)2 from receiving, demanding or promising compensation, or from possessing, delivering, or distributing the means of access in return for consideration.” Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015).