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.

1. No person who violates the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall issue a transaction instruction in electronic financial transactions, or transfer any electronic card or other means of access used to guarantee the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of such transaction;

Nevertheless, the Defendant sent a e-mail passbook by raising the transaction performance of the passbook from the nameless loaner. Accordingly, the Defendant received a proposal from the existing e-mail card, and transferred the e-mail card and its password to Kwikset service article who sent the e-mail card in the name of the Defendant on November 9, 2016, and transferred the e-mail card and its password of the e-mail account (D) opened in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant in the front of the original city around November 9, 2016.

2. As set forth in paragraph 1, the embezzlement: (a) the Defendant, even after transferring the check card in the name of the Defendant’s post office account to a person with no name; (b) transferred KRW 17 million to the above account in the name of the Defendant as the victim B was affiliated with the loan fraud group on November 11, 2016; and (c) subsequently, (d) deposited the money deposited in the said account in the vicinity of the original city on the same day, he withdrawn KRW 6 million as KRW 55,50,000,000, out of the money kept in the said account in the vicinity of the original city on the same day; and (b) embezzled the money arbitrarily consumed at around that time.

3. Fraud;

A. Although the Defendant was notified on November 12, 2016, after withdrawing the remitted money as a check, etc. as referred to in paragraph (2), that his account was used for Bosing and trading it was suspended on or around November 12, 2016, the Defendant purchased the Handphone belt of an amount equivalent to KRW 7,000,000 in the market price within the G operated by the Victim F in Won-si, the Defendant purchased the Handphone belt at around 13:03 on November 25, 2016, and presented as if the Defendant was a check that would be able to normally pay 1 copy of the Handphone (H) one on the one hand of the original post office issued by the Defendant, which was withdrawn as referred to in paragraph (2), and that it was said that it was a check that would be able to normally pay from the injured person the said Handphone belt and the flus money in cash on the pretext of cash 93.