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

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received 200,000,000 won from the deceased from the U.S. 1 Dong-dong Residents’ Republic of Korea; and (b) sent 2 kwikset cards connected to the Defendant’s name bank account (B) and the new bank account (C), respectively, to the needy through Kwikset Service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on internal investigation (attaching a certificate of transfer confirmation);

1. Data on bank replies;

1. Application of new Acts and subordinate statutes on inquiry into bank facts;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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 crime of lending an access medium under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a means to facilitate other crimes committed against many unspecified persons, such as Bosing, etc., and the Defendant’s access medium was actually used for the crime of lending fraud, etc.; however, the Defendant committed an offense with an expectation of economic benefits; however, the Defendant committed an actual benefit.

The circumstances that can be seen are not confirmed, the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and the primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment is considered as favorable circumstances. In addition, all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., shall be comprehensively considered, and the sentence like the order shall be imposed.