Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall lend any access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration.

On December 12, 2017, the Defendant promised to receive 10% of the transaction amount in return for lending an account from a person in a name in unsound, and delivered a physical card, one and a password connected to one bank account under the name of the Defendant or B, to the name in return, from a private teaching institute located in Ansan-si around 15:00 on December 12, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant promised to receive compensation and lent the approaching media.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Details of deposit transactions and replies to financial transaction information;

1. Application of text-based statutes;

1. Article 49 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 49 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions through which punishment is selected, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The act of lending an access medium to electronic financial transactions with the promise of the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict punishment as it impairs the stability and reliability of the electronic financial transaction and may be abused for other crimes such as singinginging fraud, etc. In fact, considering the fact that the victim of the fraudulent crime has occurred through the access medium leased by the defendant, and the fact that the defendant could have predicted the possibility of using his access medium for other illegal purposes in light of the contents proposed by the person in whose name the victim was not certain, the fact that the defendant could have predicted the possibility of such criticism is unfavorable to the defendant. The fact that the defendant is against the mistake, the fact that the defendant is against the wrong, the fact that the proceeds of lending the access medium seems not to have been actually paid, and that there is no penalty history exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendant

In addition to the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered as ordered.