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

No person may, in using and managing a means of access, borrow or lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation therefor.

Nevertheless, around December 2019, the Defendant received the proposal that “If only 20,000 won are lent to one week, one million won shall be set up per week” from the person who was not the name, and accepted it. At around that time, the Defendant sent one passbook in the name of Kwikset service article in the name of the limited liability company B (D) and one check card linked thereto, which the Defendant manages against the above person who was not the name, through Kwikset service article in the vicinity of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju and sent the password to the above person who was not the name.

In this respect, the defendant would receive compensation and lent the means of access to his name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a petition, transfer certificate, search, seizure and verification warrant reply;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: The reason why the act of lending the means of access is disadvantageous to the sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution: The fact that it is necessary to strictly punish the means of access because it is often used as a means of other crimes; the deposit account provided by the defendant actually used for other crimes; the defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was punished by a fine on one occasion due to the same kind of crime;