If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

No one shall lend a means of access while demanding, demanding or promising the compensation for the use and management of the means of access.

Nevertheless, around June 14, 2019, the Defendant may loan up to KRW 3 million from a person who had misrepresented the “C Proxy” of the Company B, to the name omitted. For the payment of interest, the Defendant received a proposal from the principal’s name to the effect that he/she will deposit monthly interest on the said C Card, and then accepted the proposal to the effect that he/she will withdraw and use it. On June 17, 2019, he/she sent the C Card connected to the Defendant’s name bank account (F) before the Defendant’s name omitted.

As a result, the Defendant promised to lend the means of access in return for intangible expectation interest that can receive a loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to details of transactions by period of receipt / customer use, details of transactions by account, details of transactions by account, and application for transactions;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The act of lending a normal means of access that is disadvantageous to the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict punishment since such act is serious as the act of serving as a means of another crime such as tax evasion and fraud.

In fact, the means of access in the name of the accused was used for the fraud.

Although the Defendant stated that he would have caused the instant crime by deceiving the Defendant to borrow a loan, the Defendant was subject to suspension of indictment for the purpose of lending the means of access for the purpose of obtaining a loan even around 2010, so such act is deemed to have been well aware of the fact that it was a crime.

Nevertheless, the defendant has committed the same crime again.

e.beliable;