Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

No person shall, in using and managing the means of access to electronic financial transactions, borrow or lend the means of access or keep, deliver or distribute the means of access while demanding, demanding or promising compensation.

On July 9, 2018, the Defendant, by telephone, offered a proposal to the effect that “B employee is required to pay 800,000 won a day and 2.4 million won a day as allowances,” from a person who has not been named on his/her name. On the same day, he/she provided a means of access by promising to deliver one copy of the physical card connected to the account of community credit cooperatives (E) in the name of the Defendant at the entrance of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, to a person who has not been named on his/her name to receive compensation.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant in this court;

1. Statement of the suspect examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each entry in the F’s authentic statement and written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to describe a copy of a certificate of electronic financial transfer;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is 【The scope of applicable sentences under the law】 Fine of 50,000 won or more to 20 million won 【Pronouncement of sentence】 The act of lending means of access is serious social harm by facilitating various crimes, such as tax evasion, Internet gambling, and hosting, and the act of facilitating the lending of means of access is serious; the act of lending means of access is 5 million won or more for the use of the account lent by the Defendant to the financial institution; due to the use of the account lent by the Defendant: the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and divided. At the time of the instant crime, there is no evidence to support the fact that the account of the financial institution that the Defendant lends to the person who was in default of the name was used for licensing.