However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant sent a check and check card from the end of May 2017 or from the beginning of June 2017, the name of the Defendant, who was not the name of the Defendant, to the end of May 2017.

In other words, “C” listens to the horses and, even though it is well aware of the fact that fraud using another person’s account is character and conduct and that there is no case to request the check to obtain a loan, without securing at all the means of guaranteeing the right to receive the check, sent the check card connected to the Defendant’s post office account (D) in the name of the non-person with Kwikset Service.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the electronic financial transaction access media to another person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. E’s written petition;

1. Inquiries about details of financial transactions, detailed statement of deposit transactions, statement of transactions automatically made in cash, verification of deposit, inquiry about details of financial transactions, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on personal information of financial companies;

1. The applicable provision of Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Since the act of transferring a media access to the grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution may be abused as a means of other crimes, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the fact that the instant account that the Defendant transferred access media was actually used for other crimes; and (b) the fact that the instant account was actually used for other crimes.

However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and did not repeat the crime, the fact that there is no criminal record for the same kind, the fact that the wife and her two children should be supported, the circumstances of the crime, and the record of the crime, the decision is made as ordered.