Nevertheless, the Defendant listened to the statement that “When sending a physical card, the Defendant would offer a so-called working loan that loans KRW 8 million after repeatedly counting credit rating from the entry and departure.” On October 20, 2016, around 16:30, the Defendant transferred the physical card in the name of the Defendant’s bank account B (C) and D bank account (E) and notified the password to the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant posted credit rating through the repeated transaction details of input money, and then lent an access medium to the needy party after promising the consideration for the loan.

2. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion is that the defendant lent the access media to the needy person as stated in the facts charged, but there is no stipulation of the passbook in return for consideration.

3. Determination

A. The record reveals the following circumstances.

1) On September 2016, before receiving the instant loan, the Defendant received a telephone from a deceased person, and deposited KRW 960,000,000 with the deposit money for the police officer on October 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 4,000,000,000 with the deposit money for the police officers at the expense of deleting the Financial Supervisory Service’s overdue records and deletion of bad credit records.

2) On October 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a phone call from the deceased; and (b) posted a e-mail card to the deceased on October 2016, 2016; (c) stated that “When sending the e-mail card, the credit rating of KRW 8 million shall be rounded up by repeating the payment, and then loans KRW 2.7% per annum; and (d) the Defendant would return the e-mail card to the deceased on October 20, 2016; and (e) the e-mail card was returned if the loan was implemented and the loan was returned.

3) On October 24, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the progress of loans by posting a phone directly to the needy person via the telephone number which has been suffering from before it.