However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In using and managing a means of access, no one shall lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act.

Nevertheless, on January 7, 2020, the Defendant received a proposal from a person who has no name, stating that “I would create a transaction performance and lend a loan when sending a physical card.” On January 10, 2020, the Defendant accepted it, and then sent one check card connected to B’s bank accounts in the name of the Defendant at the post office located in the Bupyeong-dong, Kimhae-si around January 10, 202, to a person who has no name, and notified the Kakao of the password number.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive intangible expectation interest that can receive a loan and lent the means of access to a person who is not his/her name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of deposits in the written petition of the defendant's legal statement D;

1. Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 17297 of May 19, 202), the pertinent provision on criminal facts, and the choice of imprisonment with labor

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The scope of recommendation [decision of types] according to the sentencing guidelines for offenses in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act [Article 1] general scope of crimes [the scope of recommendation] basic area, April to October of imprisonment;

2. In the instant case, the means of access for electronic financial transactions with sentence was likely to be used for committing crimes, such as licensing, etc., and the Defendant actually incurred damage due to the means of access leased by the Defendant.

In the past, even though the Defendant was punished by a fine for the crime that transferred the means of access, the Defendant committed the same crime again.

However, the defendant is against the crime of this case, and there is no profit acquired by the crime of this case.

The defendant.