The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not mean that the Defendant received a promise to temporarily grant a loan for consideration for lending if he/she temporarily issues a debit card, and only he/she received a debit card as a means to increase the possibility of lending only by taking full account of the possibility that he/she can do so. Thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a lending of the means of access by promising the payment to contribute to the lending of the means of access, but did not intend to do so.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is established to clarify the legal relationship of electronic financial transactions to ensure the safety and reliability of the electronic financial transaction (Article 1); “The act of lending the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising the payment (Article 6(3)2); and the person who lends the means of access in violation of such provision is punished (Article 49(4)2). “Lending the means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the act of lending the means of access to any other person temporarily without managing and supervising the user of the means of access to use the means of access (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8957, Aug. 18, 2017); “Price” refers to the economic benefit corresponding to the lending of the means of access (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019).