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

In using and managing the means of access, no one shall transfer or acquire the means of access, or promise to receive compensation, and lend or receive the means of access, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, on March 17, 2016, the Defendant received a call from a person without a name, who used for the operation of a sports Saturday site and lent the means of access to the account and acquired cash. On March 17, 2016, the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 2.5 million per month of the means of access from the Kwikset Service Articles who sent the above person without a name on the front road at the time in order to receive KRW 2.5 million per month of the means of access, and sent the check card to the company bank account (C) opened in the name of the Defendant, and notified the password to the telephone.

Accordingly, the defendant agreed to receive compensation and lent the means of access to electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on public receipt;

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. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include lending means of access, etc. under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act that encourage many unspecified persons to commit a crime, such as scam and Internet goods fraud. In fact, the means of access leased by the Defendant has been used for the criminal act of scaming, the circumstances in which the Defendant actually committed a crime of obtaining economic benefits but the circumstances in which the Defendant had committed a crime of scam are not verified, the Defendant recognized the Defendant's mistake, the Defendant was not punished for the same crime, and there was no record of criminal punishment since 197, and there was no other records and arguments, such as the number of means of access leased by the Defendant.