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.

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in any other Act, no one shall lend any access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration in using or managing an electronic card used in electronic financial transactions, electronic information equivalent thereto, certificate, password, etc.

Nevertheless, on March 19, 2017, the Defendant would offer a loan fee of KRW 1,80,000,000 per three days by calculating 6 million per day on the face of the lending of the head of the Tong, in a place where Daegu-gu could not be known.

“Around 14:00 of the same month, “A” sent a new bank account (Account Number: D) under the name of the Defendant and a new bank account (Account Number: Account Number: E) at around 14:00 of the same month and lent a medium of access to electronic financial transactions, with Kwikset’s service and promising to notify the password of the price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A certificate of deposit confirmation, certificate of transfer confirmation, inquiry of transaction details, copy of a new bank account, copy of a new bank account, inquiry of transaction details, and inquiry of new bank liquidity transaction details, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the new bank receipt;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence include: (a) the Defendant lent an access medium with the promise to pay the consideration; (b) the use of the access medium was unfavorable; (c) the confession was made; (d) the fact that the access medium was committed against the actual crime of telephone financial fraud; (d) the fact that the Defendant did not participate in the telephone financial fraud crime; and (e) the fact that there was no record of punishment heavier than the same crime or fine; and (e) other favorable circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment