Nevertheless, on July 2017, the Defendant received letters from the Defendant who lent the passbook to the Defendant, and received the promise that he will pay KRW 3 million on the condition that he/she lends the passbook to his/her name in return for telephone conversations with his/her name in return for his/her name in return for his/her telephone conversations with the Defendant, and that he/she will pay KRW 1 million on the condition that he/she uses it for one month per page. On the same day, on December of the same day, the Defendant sent Kwikset service articles who sent the name in return for the Defendant’s name in return for his/her name in return for his/her own bank account (Account Number C) with the Defendant’s name in return for his/her own bank account.

2. According to the records, the indictment of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes double prosecution for the same facts charged as the instant case violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (hereinafter “Electronic Financial Transactions Act”), which was previously instituted before the prosecution was instituted.

The public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act as it falls under the case in which the public prosecution is instituted again.