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

No person shall lend any medium access to electronic financial transactions in return for the consideration therefor.

Nevertheless, on December 2017, the Defendant would lend a physical card from a person without his name, with KRW 80,000 per day on which he borrowed the physical card.

“After receiving the proposal of “,” and consenting, around December 3, 2017, the post office of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, transferred the physical card connected to the accounts of the Saemaul Treasury (B) in the name of the defendant to the above person in the name of the deceased.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for the certificate of transfer confirmation;

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. The Defendant’s crime of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of the sentencing of the provisional payment order is leased with a promise to receive a consideration. Such a crime may not only disrupt the reliability and safety of electronic financial transactions, but also be abused as a means of crime using an access medium. Therefore, there is a need for the punishment.

The defendant's access media seems to have actually been used to commit the phishing fraud, etc., thereby causing damage.

The accused shall have the past record of criminal punishment on two occasions, including one criminal convictions, once.

However, the defendant shows the form of recognizing and opposing the crime in this court.

The Defendant appears to have directly participated in the phishing fraud crime, and stated to the effect that he did not receive any special benefit from the instant crime.

There are two criminal records for the accused, but there are no criminal records for the same crime.

The Defendant, at the site of the law, has caused the instant crime.