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

No one shall transfer or acquire any means of access, unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act, in using and managing the means of access.

Nevertheless, on September 18, 2019, the Defendant received text messages to the effect that it is possible to grant a loan to a name-free person who introduces himself/herself as C via a mobile phone, and then, in the process of making a telephone call to a name-free person, the Defendant sent a phone call to him/her, “it is possible to lend up to 4 million won per month at the interest rate of 4% per month. However, in the process of sending a phone to him/her: Provided, That the Defendant sent a check card to the effect that “it is necessary to pay interest to him/her until he/she has repaid his/her loan after receiving the loan from the party and then he/she has repaid the loan to him/her.” On September 20, 2019, the Defendant sent the check card to him/her via a name-free phone and sent it to him/her via a name-free phone. On the same day, the Defendant sent the check card to him/her on the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the means of access to a person who has not been named.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Details of deposit transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on warrant answer materials;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The following grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

The Defendant’s act of transferring the means of access to another person, like the instant crime, needs to be strictly punished inasmuch as it can be used as other means of crime, such as singishing.

In this case, the means of access transferred by the defendant was used for the crime of Bophishing, thereby causing damage.