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.

around 13:00 on April 18, 2017, the Defendant issued Kwikset Service a physical card connected to the KEB bank account (Account Number: D) opened in the name of the Defendant, and issued a physical card connected to the KEB bank account (Account Number) at around 13:0 on the same day to the above person in the same manner. The Defendant issued a physical card connected to the KEB bank account (Account Number: E) opened in the name of the Defendant at the same place on the same day.

In this respect, the defendant transferred the access media to the above-name in the second time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol of interrogation of the suspect by the prosecution or the police against the accused (including each accompanying document);

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

1. Application of each written petition, statement of transaction by account, and response to financial transaction details by Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the crime, the selection of punishment for the selective punishment, Articles 49 (4) 1 and 6 (3) 1 of the same Act, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of transferring the access media as in the instant case’s sentencing is likely to undermine the stability and reliability of electronic financial transactions and to be abused for any other serious crime, and thus, the case is not easy, and the Defendant is deemed to have clearly known of the fact that the instant crime was illegal, because he was subject to non-prosecution disposition (no suspicion, lack of evidence) in connection with the act of issuing a personal check card to a person who has no name in 2015, and thus, the Defendant appears to have clearly known of the fact that the instant crime was illegal, such as the following: (a) the Defendant reflects the fact that the Defendant was guilty; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment; and (c) the Defendant appears to have no benefit acquired by the instant case; and (d) other favorable circumstances such as the motive and background of the instant crime