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

No one shall transfer or take over any access medium or lend or lease any access medium while receiving, demanding or promising the price therefor in using or managing the access medium.

Nevertheless, around November 22, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 900,000 per day from the person who was under his/her name, who was the Defendant working company in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Inc., the Defendant, a company working for the Defendant in the name of Seo-gu, and issued a copy of the physical card for the personal compromise account (Account Number: C) in the name of the Defendant to the above person who was under his/her name, via Kwikwikset service articles.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to pay for the above, and lent the approaching media.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to details of transfer, details of search and seizure warrant and reply;

1. Article 49 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 49 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions through which punishment is selected, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s crime of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of the sentencing of the provisional payment order is leased with a promise to receive a consideration. Such a crime may not only disrupt the reliability and safety of electronic financial transactions, but also be abused as a means of crime using an access medium. Therefore, there is a need for the punishment.

The defendant's access media seems to have actually been used to commit the phishing fraud, etc., thereby causing damage.

Since the Defendant had the history of criminal punishment 14 times, and in particular, was subject to suspension of indictment due to the suspicion of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in around 2014, it seems that it could have sufficiently recognized the illegality of lending the approaching media, etc., it is more likely to criticize the crime.

However, the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime in this court.