A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall, with respect to the use and management of a means of access, borrow or lend a means of access or store, deliver or distribute a means of access with the knowledge that such means are to be used for a crime or to be used for a crime.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2018, the Defendant received a proposal from a nameless person who misrepresented B, who "it is to receive the business cost in Korea while doing business making a mobile phone case in the Philippines, and if there is a large amount of tax if a normal transaction is made, it is expected to receive and return the business cost." On August 22, 2018, the Defendant sent one check card connected to the post office account (Account Number: D) in the name of the Defendant to the person who sent the above name in front of the Daegu Northern-gu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul, through the person who sent the above name in front of the post office account (Account Number) in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered a means of access to electronic financial transactions, knowing that it will be used for crimes such as tax evasion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Oral statement of the defendant (as of the second trial date);

1. Application of written statements (E) and statutes governing details of transactions;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act - The card that the defendant lent to the defendant was used for the singing crime - The fact that the defendant's name and reflects the defendant's crime - the partial amount of damage appears to have been refunded due to suspension of payment, the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and according to the conversation with the offender, the defendant seems to have lent the card intentionally with negligence. The above circumstances appear to be that the defendant intentionally lent the card.