Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Except as otherwise provided for in Acts and subordinate statutes, no one shall lend any means of access necessary for electronic financial transactions in return for any consideration.

Nevertheless, on August 19, 2014, the Defendant accepted the proposal that “The user fee of KRW 1.5 million shall be paid for the lending of the passbook” from the person who has no personal name. On the same day, the Defendant lent the means of access for a fee by delivering the physical card linked to the passbook (Account Number C) in the name of the Defendant in front of the Yeongdeungpocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the street prior to the same day through Kwikset Service and informing him of the password by telephone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of data confirming deposits, written application for transactions, and statutes governing transactions;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Selection of Fine) concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement in the workhouse asserts that the defendant did not deliver his/her physical card to his/her own person, but the person who was unable to obtain his/her name had fled from the defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by taking full account of each of the evidence in the judgment, that is, the defendant informed him/her of the password to the person who requested the lending of the passbook, and that if the defendant transferred his/her name-free person with the check, it is reasonable to request the immediate suspension of payment of the account, even though the above account was not used until it was used for fraud, the above argument that the defendant obtained the check card is unreasonable, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant delivered it to his/her own person.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.