However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

On December 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from an employee under the name of the beneficiary of the license (hereinafter “person without the name”) to “to withdraw and return money to the account for the performance of the transaction; (b) to request the withdrawal of the money; (c) to return the money; (d) to the account; (d) obtained the loan; and (e) notified the account information to the person with the name of the beneficiary.”

However, on March 7, 2019, the Defendant received a loan proposal through the improvement of transaction performance and sent the means of access through the improvement of the transaction performance, as seen in this case, and was punished by the investigation agency for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by using the relevant means of access for the crime of Bophishing. Thus, the Defendant was aware that the reality of the proposal “making a low interest rate loan by creating a low interest rate loan” of a person whose identity and affiliation are not clearly identified, and that the employees of Bophishing used another person’s account for the crime.

In addition, the defendant requested an unnecessary act to withdraw and deliver the money deposited from another person's name from the other person's name at the time to Seoul, and it is not necessary to directly withdraw and deliver cash in order to accumulate the loan transaction performance. The defendant was aware of the past experience of receiving the loan, and the defendant also knew that such demand is an exceptional. When the defendant withdraws the money deposited by the bank from the bank, he may be subject to criminal punishment if he delivers and withdraws the money deposited by any person who is not aware of the transaction record in order to obtain a low interest rate government loan, or lends the passbook to the bank."