The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The lower court, on November 24, 2016, determined that service on the Defendant by public notice should be made as of November 24, 2016 when the Defendant was unable to serve a duplicate, etc. of the indictment on the grounds that the whereabouts of the Defendant is unknown, and the lower court, on January 5, 2017, revised without the attendance of the Defendant pursuant to Articles 365 and 458(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and examined evidence, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of seven million won on the same day.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the lower court, the residence and telephone number other than the telephone number in which the prosecutor attempted to serve the service prior to the decision of service by public notice, or the telephone number are known. Thus, the lower court’s decision without cancelling the decision of service by public notice is unlawful

This court is not able to maintain the judgment of the court below because it has served a copy, etc. of the indictment again and newly proceeded with all the procedure of trial including the examination of evidence.

In the case of lending means of access in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, one crime is established for each means of access. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of lending several means of access in a lump sum constitutes one act that constitutes a crime of violating several electronic financial transactions and each crime constitutes a commercial concurrent relationship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). According to the records, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she leased a passbook and cash card for each account recorded in the facts charged at the same time after being reissued. At the same time, each electronic financial transaction act on the means of access leased is in a commercial concurrent relationship.

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 the judgment.