Nevertheless, on April 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) obtained a call from a person in an infinite name from a person in an infinite place; (b) “The head of a Tong is lacking due to a lot of transactions; (c) one account is lent; (d) KRW 300,000 in one month; and (e) KRW 700,000 in one month if the card is sent; and (e) was sent to the convenience of the card; and (e) lent two copies of the card to the name infinite, by leaving the card infinite B’s name to a new bank account under the name of the Defendant in the C convenience store located in Jin-si apartment, as the name of the person infinite B, as the person infiniteed.

Accordingly, the defendant committed the act of lending the approaching media while promising the price.

2. According to the records, the Defendant, by a public prosecutor of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Office, was prosecuted on August 24, 2017 by the prosecutor of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and the relevant case is pending as Daejeon District Court No. 2017 No. 3269.

Accordingly, it is evident that the instant facts charged, which was instituted on October 27, 2017, is the same as the facts charged for the violation of the Act on the Electronic Financial Transactions and Trade, in which a public prosecution has already been instituted, and the commercial concurrences with it.

Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case in which the public prosecution is instituted again.