When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

In using and managing the means of access, no one may borrow or lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, on September 11, 2019, the Defendant, while receiving a loan consultation from a person who misrepresented B Bank C’s agent at a place where it is unknown at a place where the location is unknown, received a loan from a person who was not the name of the beneficiary, and then paid the interest, etc. on the fees to be paid to him/her. The Defendant sent the C Card. Around September 20, 2019, he/she issued the C Card connected to the D Bank’s account (E) in the name of the Defendant in the vicinity of the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

As a result, the Defendant promised to provide a means of access in return for an intangible expected profit to receive future loans, and lent it to a person who is named in bad faith.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement, the defendant's petition and statement of the police interrogation protocol G of each police interrogation protocol of the F (the remittance of KRW 30 million to the defendant's account, KRW 21 million to the F account), the statement A of account transfer, the request for search and seizure warrant and provision of financial transaction information of F, and each investigation report on communication data provision (the grounds for applying the search and inspection warrant, the application of the financial account trend, the reasons for requesting the provision of communication data, and the investigation report on communication data submission) applying statutes;

1. The crime of this case where the pertinent Article on criminal facts, Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act regarding the selection of punishment (a means of access lending), and Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (a means of access lending), and the crime of this case where a fine is selected, are not likely to be committed in light of the fact that the Defendant lent the means of access for the purpose of lending, and that the Defendant actually generated a telephone financial

However, the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, and the defendant was punished by the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 1987 at the time of the crime of this case.