When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On March 2014, the Defendant granted KRW 20,000 won per head of Tong-gu Tong-dong, Daegu-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong post office “Absk-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong.”

“The proposal accepted and delivered KRW 400,000 from B, and delivered to B the Defendant’s name bank account (Account Number: C), one passbook connected to the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number): one cash card; one passbook connected to the Defendant’s name (Account Number: D); and one cash card connected to the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number).

2. On June 13, 2014, the Defendant accepted the proposal that “as a result, the Defendant grants KRW 200,000 per head of Tong/Dong-dong, Daegu dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong dong 200,000 from B and delivered KRW 200,00

Accordingly, the Defendant lent the electronic financial transaction access media at a price from B twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions, investigation reports (the account used for crime and the arrangement of the nominal names thereof), investigation reports (Submission of suspect, report on accompanying documents of account transactions in the name of the suspect bank, foreign exchange bank account, and the details

1. Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015) regarding criminal facts

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

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which is the case where the defendant lent the access media for electronic financial transactions, not only harm the trust and safety of financial transactions, but also harm the use of the access media for various criminal acts. However, the defendant's mistake when committing the crime of this case is committed.