On August 12, 2019, the Defendant: (a) heard the phrase “to make a loan by making it possible to make a transaction details; (b) sent a physical card from a person in distress; and (c) around August 13, 2019, the Defendant transferred a physical card connected to the DDR account in the Defendant’s residence in the Defendant’s name to a person in distress via Kwikset Service.

As such, the Defendant transferred the means of access under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act to a person who is unaware of name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to review the results of transfer (Evidence No. 12 pages), details of financial transactions (Evidence No. 21-22 pages);

1. Relevant Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. A fine of two million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one hundred thousand won per day converted);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Pronouncement of Sentence (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendant did not gain any benefit from the instant crime; there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances leading up to the instant crime; the Defendant paid a certain amount of damage each month to the victim of the fraudulent crime; the Defendant took an attitude to repenting his/her mistake in depth; the Defendant did not have any criminal record other than punishment for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2009; and the fact that there was no other criminal record other than punishment for the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concern