A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

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, on March 27, 2019, the Defendant received a proposal from a person whose name is unknown to “to grant a loan if he/she sends a crow for securing transaction performance.” On March 27, 2019, the Defendant sent a cream card to the Defendant’s new bank account (D) connected with the Defendant’s name through a person whose name is unknown after inserting the cream card in the mail box Nos. 11:10 on March 27, 2019.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive intangible expected gains from future loans and lent the means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused (the details of the attached account transactions);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing selective sentence of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] the scope of offenses in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act [Type 1] and the absence of general crimes [the scope of recommendations and recommendations] [the scope of recommendations and recommendations] basic area, April to October;

2. The crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, such as this case’s sentencing decision, cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak in that it facilitates any singing crime which is a serious problem in our society.

In 2016, even though the Defendant committed a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by lending the means of access two times, and was punished by a fine, the Defendant committed the same type of crime again.

However, it is against the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing a crime and the health status of the defendant is not good.