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

No person shall lend or borrow an access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration in using or managing the access medium.

Nevertheless, on October 27, 2016, the defendant is a liquor company (ju) interesting from a person who was in the name of the defendant around October 27, 2016, which requires the head of a Tong due to tax reduction or exemption.

The term "to give KRW 3,00,000 on the face of the head of the Tong" was offered as a proposal, and around October 28, 2016, around 09:00 on the street of Incheon Bupyeong-gu B and 1 Dong 401, the defendant's residence, the defendant's residence, sent two copies of each of the 2 (C and D) bank account in the name of the defendant, and notify the account number and password by telephone.

Accordingly, the defendant agreed to receive compensation and lent access media used in electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Copy of the police statement made to E;

1. Application of the statutes on the details of reply to the request for financial transaction information and the transactions of deposits and withdrawals into the C account of one bank;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions for the crime;

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The act of lending the physical card or password for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is highly likely to be used for singing, singing, etc.

Nevertheless, in accordance with the interests of the Defendant, the Defendant committed the instant crime, and as a result, the access media transferred by the Defendant was used for the phishing crime, thereby causing the victim.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his mistake.

The defendant has been sentenced to two times of punishment and six times of fine, but has not been sentenced to the same offense.

It seems that there is no benefit from the defendant actually and currently lives in good faith.