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

No person shall, while promising to make any consideration, borrow or lend a means of access used in electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, at around 14:28 on November 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from a person under whose name the name was misrepresented to “B Company C’s agent at an infinite location at Osan City (hereinafter referred to as “B Company C’s agent”); (b) received a proposal that “the Defendant would prejudice the lending of low interest rate of 2 million won; (c) sent a check to enable repayment of future loans; and (d) sent a check to enable repayment of future loans; and (e) sent a physical card connected to the name of the Defendant’s agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant on the front of D Apartment at Osan-si, Osan-si (E) and notified the password

As a result, the Defendant promised to execute a loan in the future and lent the means of access for electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement concerning G;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

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

1. Sentencing sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the instant crime can be used as a means of phishing crime and its nature is not good, and the means of access provided by the Defendant was actually used as a phishing crime, and considering all favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s primary crime and the violation of the crime, the judgment is delivered as per Disposition, taking into account the sentencing precedents of similar cases.