A. The Defendant received a proposal that misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles raise the transaction performance so that he can obtain loans, and delivered one physical card (hereinafter “instant physical card”) to a person who is not the nominal holder, and did not deliver the means of access by promising the receipt of fees.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant promised to receive and deliver the means of access, and thus, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. “Lending a means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act means lending a means of access to a third party temporarily without managing or supervising the user of the means of access in receiving, demanding or promising to receive compensation, and “price” refers to an economic benefit in relation to the lending of the means of access.

On the other hand, obtaining an opportunity to obtain a loan even in a situation where it is difficult to obtain a loan by normal means can be seen as having a quid pro quo relationship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). B.

Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below:

① The Defendant was in a situation in which it was difficult for a bank or any other financial institution to obtain a loan because it was not good credit at the time of issuing the instant physical card to an unqualified person.

2. At that time, the Defendant, who is the B agent in the Z bank examination team, and the C team leader working in the AA, has the card that can grant a loan from those who are named as the “10 million won.”