When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. On June 19, 2019, the Defendant in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act listens to the statement that “E” from a nameless person who misrepresented at the Cbank D Center located in the following Cbank B “E” to “on the face of lending for a period of six months only, 1.70 thousand won per day from the date of such lending.” On the other hand, the Defendant was deposited 8.50 thousand won per day from the above nameless person under the name of the Defendant to the post office (F) account in the name of the Defendant, and sent a copy of the account number (G), account password, identification number, and identification card in the name of the Defendant, and then sent from the above name poor person the statement that “in order to obtain an authorized certificate at the CB site, the identification number for issuing an authorized certificate is required”, and by giving information of the password for issuing an authorized certificate, so that the above defective person can use the electronic financial transaction by himself/herself without managing and supervising the Defendant’s authorized certificate.

Accordingly, the Defendant lent the means of access in return for compensation.

2. On June 19, 2019, the Defendant lent a means of access linked to the Defendant’s bank account to the Defendant’s account, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1(1) of the same Article, and the Defendant stated that “I would use the Defendant’s personal account from one week after the said name is required.” However, on June 20, 2019, the Defendant confirmed the details of the Defendant’s bank account, the Defendant’s bank account was conducting transactions with multiple accounts, unlike the above explanation, repeated transactions with multiple accounts. Furthermore, the Defendant’s bank account is continuing transactions with the non-cocoin bank account, not the bank account, and the Defendant’s non-indicted bank account continues transactions with the non-indicted bank account. However, it was not necessary to confirm the contact, but it was not necessary to confirm the contact. The Defendant’s money deposited into the Defendant’s bank account.