Accordingly, the Defendant knowingly lent the means of access to the crime.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the defendant is a university professor with a high level of knowledge or knowledge and who has been subject to investigation on the transfer of a means of access by means similar to those in the previous two times, and that the defendant is doubtful that he was more than a speech at the time of the transfer of a physical card, it is true that there is a doubt as to whether the defendant would not transfer a means of access, knowing that he would be used for crime.

However, the defendant also issued a e-mail card for the purpose of obtaining a loan, and in fact, it appears that the defendant sent it by facsimile with the identification card, medical insurance acquisition certificate, and medical insurance payment certificate, which is the document requested by the non-person who was issued the above e-mail to obtain a loan. In such a situation, it appears that the defendant's intention appears to have been recognized as one time and temporary loan, such as the defendant's disclosure of purpose of use for the crime, delivery of the e-mail card to the defendant, and demanding the defendant to lend the e-mail card to the defendant, etc., which can easily be anticipated that the e-mail card provider will be used for the crime. In light of all circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the defendant's delivery of the e-mail card, it cannot be seen that the e-mail card is issued in a situation where the e-mail card provider could have easily anticipated that the e-mail card will be used for the crime.