The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15, respectively, of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact of fraud by using each computer, etc., it cannot be said that the defendant bears the responsibility for the crime of conspiracy co-principal in light of the circumstances leading to the defendant's participation in the crime. 2) In relation to the violation of each electronic financial transaction act, the defendant was holding each of the cards listed in the separate sheet 2 at the time of arrest. However, the above each card was not "acquisition" as provided by Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

A. With respect to Paragraph (1) (Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.) of the facts charged at the trial, the prosecutor: (a) as to the name of the crime; (b) as to the applicable provisions of the law to “Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.”; and (c) as to the facts charged, the applicable provisions of the law to “Article 347-2 and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act”; (b) as to the facts charged, the Defendant, including B, and the accused, conspired with the names in distress, received total amount of KRW 24,298,234 from four victims in the same manner as indicated in the annexed crime list 1, and received information without authority from the information processor, and obtained financial benefits equivalent to the same amount; and (c) as indicated in the annexed crime list 1, the Defendant, including B, and the accused, received information processing, and sent it to the names in the same way as indicated in the annexed crime list 1, thereby making it easier to obtain financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.”

On the other hand, each of the crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act stated in paragraph (2) and the facts charged before the amendment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.