However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On August 30, 2016, the Defendant, who violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, committed a promise to receive KRW 2,000,000 per month from a person under the name in the name of the non-resident prior to the permanent residence under 64 at the expense of permanent residence, and then, promised to receive KRW 2,00,000 for a new bank passbook (Account Number C) and one check card connected to this account under the name of the Defendant who is an access medium, and lent the access medium through Kwikset’s service.

2. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property by arbitrarily withdrawing KRW 5,60,000 among the said KRW 6,10,000 among the said KRW 6,10,000 from the Nonghyup Bank, which was located in the middle of 98-ro 3 as a permanent resident, and then embezzled the victim’s property by remitting KRW 493,000 to E who is the Defendant’s branch of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transfer details and transaction details;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 (a) of the Act on the elective Financial Transactions (a point of lending access media) and Article 355(1) (a) of the Criminal Act (a point of embezzlement) (a point of imprisonment with labor) (a point of embezzlement) of the same Act;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order: The defendant is recognized to commit the crime and is against the law.

The defendant did not gain profits in return for the transfer of access media, and deposited the entire amount of embezzlement.

There is no criminal history against the defendant.

The crime of this case can be abused as a means of crime, such as telephone financial company, singing, etc., as well as infringing the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions by transferring access media for electronic financial transactions.