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

1. On December 7, 2015, the Defendant violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act: (a) received a proposal from an unqualified person to the effect that he/she would provide 4.5 million won per month of lending the means of access under the name of the Defendant; (b) around 17:00 on December 10, 2015, one bank passbook connected with the “C” account opened in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant; (c) via Kwikset service articles, one bank passbook connected with the “C” account opened in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant; and (d) notified the above bank passbook of the password.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to receive compensation and lent the means of access.

2. The Defendant, while the victim E was accused of the phishing organization under the name in which he/she had taken custody of 4.5 million won, which was transferred to an account under the Defendant’s name on December 11, 2015, he/she arbitrarily withdrawn 3.8 million won out of the said money at a place on the same day and embezzled.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Police internal investigation report (party A to the suspected criminal suspect);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the certificate of confirmation or the request for warrant execution;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 (a) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (a means of lending access media), Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of embezzlement) and the selection of fines for a crime;

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In relation to the embezzlement of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant is deemed to have returned part of the amount embezzled by the victim to the victim. However, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is necessary not only to impair the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also to be punished in that the leased electronic financial transaction can serve as a means of various other criminal acts. In fact, the means of access leased by the Defendant has been used in the crime, and the Defendant has suffered damage.