When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

No one shall transfer, receive, request or promise any means of access, such as a user number, electronic card or other similar information registered with a financial company, etc. used to issue a transaction request in electronic financial transactions or to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of transactions, and a password necessary for using such means of access.

On October 28, 2019, the Defendant received a proposal to send a physical card in order to verify the transfer limit, which he/she became aware of through mobile phone advertising text from the agent B Bank C, and agreed to send a physical card in order to verify the transfer limit, and then sent a copy of the physical card linked to the post office account (D) opened in the name of the Defendant to C through her house line at the office of office (D) located in the 1,000 YY-dong 43, the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to provide compensation and lent the means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions, certificates of account transactions, and replies related to bank accounts at post offices;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 17297, May 19, 202) concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Act on Provisional Payment Order is the offense that is likely to abuse the means of access to another second offense and thus cause many and unspecified victims to gather. In fact, even in the instant case, the means of access leased by the Defendant was used for the crime of fraud

However, the fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime of this case, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and there is no profit acquired in this case can be considered as a favorable sentencing factor.

In addition, the defendant is the defendant.