However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

In using and managing the means of access, no one shall commit any act of lending the means of access while promising to receive any consideration, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, around December 27, 2018, the Defendant accepted the phrase “a loan could be available, and at present customer credit rating will be lower,” from a person who misrepresented the “D” of the lending adviser at the first floor of the Full-si, Busan Metropolitan City, the Defendant, at the end of December 27, 2018, sent a e-mail card connected to the account under the name of the Defendant to whom the loan was granted, through Kwikset service engineer.”

As a result, the Defendant promised to provide a means of access in return for an intangible expectation interest that can receive future loans, and lent it to a person who has not been named.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transfer;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, and that there is no criminal punishment prior to the instant case, which is favorable to the defendant. The instant crime is a factor for sentencing in favor of the defendant. The instant crime is a lending of an electronic financial transaction medium to receive compensation and thus requires strict punishment because the means of access is likely to impair trust in electronic financial transactions and be used for other criminal acts. The means of access actually lent by the defendant seems to have been used for crimes, such as scamsing, etc., are considered to be factors for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant, and is determined as ordered in consideration of the defendant’s age