Except as otherwise expressly provided for in any other Act, the means of access, such as an electronic card used to issue a transaction request in electronic financial transactions or to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of such transaction and other information equivalent thereto shall not be transferred or acquired.

Nevertheless, around October 31, 2016, the Defendant issued a proposal to create a transaction performance in the vicinity of 13 U.S. Madsan-ro 13 U.S., and offered a loan to the Defendant, who is the representative (C) bank account in the name of the new bank (D) and the national bank account (D), with the check card, OTP, and the USB in which the authorized certificate was stored, to the non-legal men.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the means of access to electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning account transactions, transaction details, transaction applications, new transaction applications, business registration certificates, and transaction details;

1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. The transfer of the means of access to selective sentencing of imprisonment is inevitable because it is used to commit organized fraud, thereby causing multiple victims.

In this case, the defendant transferred the means of access to a variety of victims, did not recover damage, and the defendant also recognized that his act was a crime.

However, on March 30, 2017, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the circumstances in which there is no particular criminal power except for a summary order of a fine of three million won issued by this court on March 30, 2017, and the investigation or trial could have been conducted as at the time of the case.