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

No person shall lend any access medium used in electronic financial transactions in promise to pay for such medium.

Nevertheless, at around 17:00 on May 8, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 800,000 in return for one-time use of the account in the name of the Defendant from a person in an unsound name, and sent one e-mail card that is linked to the Defendant’s personal compromise account (E) to a person in an unspecified name, and sent one e-mail card to a person in an unspecified name, and notified the above person of the password of the e-mail card by a mobile phone text.

As a result, the Defendant promised to pay for the access media used in electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation;

1. Article 49 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 49 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions through which punishment is selected, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. The scope of punishment: Fines of not less than 50,000 won but not more than 20 million won;

2. The sentencing criteria are not set for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in which the sentencing criteria are not set;

The sentencing guidelines shall not apply because of the choice of a fine: The electronic financial transaction access media that transfers or lends a fine of 5 million won to another person can be used for fraud crimes, such as Bosing, which may cause damage to many and unspecified persons; the account of the access media actually leased by the defendant was used for the crime of fraud; the defendant was a repeated crime period; and the defendant was not aware of the fact that he had been subject to suspension of indictment for the same crime; and the fact that he was going to the crime of this case without being able to do so.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and the defendant himself.