A. In other words, the Defendant had confirmed the business registration, etc. of the I company and lent the means of access to the said entity that has substance, and there was no perception of illegality that the means of access in this case was damaged by deception of the person who has not been killed in name.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Any person may not lend a means of access used in electronic financial transactions while demanding, demanding, or promising the use and management of the means of access (Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 6(3)2 of the same Act; Article 6(3) of the same Act provides that “The act of misunderstanding that one’s own act was not a crime committed by the court below; i.e., the defendant himself/herself stated that 2.4 million won per card was given compensation and the means of access was lent; ii) the provision punishing “the act of lending the means of access in promising to give compensation” does not constitute a requisite element; even though the defendant was unaware that the means of access in this case was used in Bophishing crimes, the defendant’s intentional act is recognized as long as it was clearly aware that the means of access was used in Bophishing crimes; and iii) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that “the act of misunderstanding that one’s own act was not a crime committed by law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable cause.”