When the defendant does not pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be converted into one day.

Except as otherwise provided for in any other Act, no person shall lend or lend any access medium with the receipt of, demand for, or promise to provide compensation in the course of using and managing the access medium.

Nevertheless, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant needs to account for the operation of soil.

“On the receipt of the text message, contact with the phone number from which the said text message was sent, and the nameless person shall pay 50,000 won per day of lending the account for five months to the account for three days, and one million won per week after three days.

“Along with the head of the Tong and the body card sent and promised to receive the price on the end of “,” and then, on the same day, sent the head of the Tong and the body card connected to the account in the name of the Defendant, in front of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B lending, the residence of the Defendant, through Kwikset Service Officer, one head of the Tong-gu bank (C) account in the name of the Defendant and one check number connected to the account.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to pay the price, and lent the approaching media.

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 governing deposit verification;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and the selection of a fine for the option of punishment;

1. Article 40 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant’s voluntary participation in the crime of lending the electronic financial transaction access media in return for a promise to pay is not a crime liability in that the harmful effects of the fraud crime, such as Bosing, etc., are not negligible.

However, it is also considered that the defendant did not receive the price for the lending of the access medium of this case, that the defendant returned money to the victim as a result of the defendant's application for the suspension of transaction, that the defendant recognized the crime, and that the defendant did not have the same power.