Nevertheless, around October 16, 2013, the Defendant sent a physical card and password to the Defendant’s office located in Gyeonggi-si, and sent it to the Defendant via a door-to-door engineer at the end of the Defendant’s office in the name-to-door box that he/she would give KRW 2.4 million in one month. On the other hand, the Defendant sent one physical card under the name of the Defendant, the means of access used in electronic financial transactions, notifying the Defendant of the password by telephone, and lent the means of access used in electronic financial transactions.

2. According to the records on the market, the Defendant: (a) was issued a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 on April 8, 2014 with a fine of KRW 2,00,000 for violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the case of 2014 high-level353 rendered by the Gwangju District Court Mapo-si Branch; and (b) confirmed that the said summary order was finalized on May 2, 2014; and (c) on the facts constituting the crime, the Defendant leased the means of electronic financial transactions, such as the one under the name of the Defendant at Chicago-si around October 7, 2013 (Account Number: C) and the personal card linked thereto (hereinafter “the instant electronic financial transactions”), such as the physical card and password, to a third party on condition that the Defendant receive KRW 600,00,000 per week; and (d) the Defendant sent the instant summary card from the instant facts charged to the name and the personal identification thereof at the same place on October 16, 2013.

‘The content of ‘ was charged’.

Therefore, since the res judicata effect of the above summary order already confirmed extends to the facts charged in this case, a judgment of acquittal is rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.