The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence subparagraph 8 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the defendant and the prosecutor) and each unfair sentencing decision (the original decision: Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and confiscation);

2. Ex officio determination

A. The crime of keeping, delivering, and distributing the means of access under Article 49(4)2 or 6(3)2 or 3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is established for each act of keeping, delivering, and distributing the means of access under Article 49(4)2 or 6(3)2 or 3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. In the event that several means of access are preserved, delivered, and distributed as a single act, the crime of violating several electronic financial transactions is in a commercial concurrent relationship. Thus, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act regarding the means of access under the Nos. 5 or 10 of the list of crimes constitutes a single and a single crime, but the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the remaining means of access (each crime No. 1 or 4 of the list of crimes) is in a substantive relationship.

Therefore, the court below erred by omitting the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act with regard to each of the above crimes and the remaining crimes. Thus, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained.

B. The amendment of the indictment was made in the trial of the court, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to change the date and time of each of the instant indictment Nos. 1 through 4 from among the facts charged in the instant case to “Pman on March 2019,” respectively, and this court permitted the amendment and changed the subject of the trial.

On the other hand, the revised facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged in this case should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained even in this regard.

3. The judgment of the court below on the ground of the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining each of the grounds for unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor.