However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, no person shall lend an access medium with his/her promise to use and manage the access medium.

Nevertheless, on August 1, 2016, the Defendant heard that he would offer a certain amount of money in return if he/she would lend a passbook from a person in the name of the deceased on the last day of the year, and around 17:00 on August 16, 2016, he/she sent a physical card (C) connected to the Defendant’s name bank account (D) and a physical card (D) connected to the Defendant’s name bank account through Kwikset on the front of Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul.

As a result, the Defendant promised to pay for, lent each approaching medium.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Investigation reports (returns to financial transaction information- Korean National Bank);

1. A deposit receipt from an enterprise bank;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the receipt of Saemaul treasury deposit;

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 imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is a very dangerous crime that facilitates the commission of other crimes, such as telephone financing fraud, using the access media, thereby causing a lot of damage.

In fact, considerable damage has occurred due to the access media lent by the defendant.

Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times in the past.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, and it seems that the defendant could not gain any actual benefit from the crime of this case, and that the defendant does not have the same criminal record, the punishment as the order shall be determined.