A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, merely delivered a e-mail card for the purpose of receiving a loan, does not receive a promise to pay and lend a means of access.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. “Lending a means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act means lending a means of access to a third party temporarily by using a means of access without managing or supervising the user of the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising to receive compensation. “Price” refers to economic benefits in relation to the lending of the means of access.

B. According to the records, the defendant does not merely exceed the physical card for the reason that it is necessary to lend, but it is difficult to lend it due to low credit rating, but if the transaction performance is accumulated, the explanation that it is possible to lend it, and then it is recognized that he will receive a return of the physical card and deliver it.

As such, while promising to obtain a loan opportunity, the Defendant temporarily lent a means of access to allow another person to use a means of access without managing and supervising the user of the means of access to conduct electronic financial transactions, and obtaining an opportunity to obtain a loan even though the Defendant is difficult to obtain a loan in a normal manner seems to have a relationship corresponding to the lending of the means of access, i.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946 Decided June 27, 2019). Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant on the same purport is justifiable.

3. Although the defendant did not have any previous criminal record, the defendant committed the singishing by using the means of access that he/she lent, and the victim occurred.