2. The lower court, based on the premise that the interpretation of penal laws and regulations should be strict, and that excessively expanded or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the express provision to the disadvantage of the accused is not permitted as it is contrary to the principle of no punishment without law, and then, under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, prohibition of “the act of lending the means of access to the means of access to the payment of the payment of the payment, or the act of lending the means of access to the payment of the payment,” and does not prohibit “the act of lending the means of access to the payment of the payment in return for the payment,” and (2) even if considering that the legislative intent of the amendment to punish the lending of the electronic financial transaction is to actively cope with crimes using the facebook, there is no separate penal provision on attempted crimes of violating Article 49(2)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, as in the instant case, the act of lending the means of access to the payment of the payment of the payment