The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of two million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall borrow or lend a means of access, or keep, deliver or distribute a means of access in receiving, demanding or promising compensation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant heard that, on April 2019, from a person whose name was unknown, the Defendant sent a check card to obtain a loan from a person who was unable to know the name of the police officer. The Defendant tested the limit of the withdrawal of the check to exceed 6 million won, and provided loans if the limit of 6 million won exceeds 6 million won, and that the card will be returned immediately after confirming the limit, and that the card will be returned immediately after confirming it. At that time, the Defendant informed the Defendant of the personal identification number of the check card, which was linked to the account of the Defendant’s name, using Kwikset-gun B and C, around that time, by using Kwikset-gun and C, to a person whose name was unknown, and notified the password of the above physical credit card.

As a result, the Defendant promised to return a means of access to a person who is not aware of his/her name in return for an intangible expected interest of future loans.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Certificates of deposit;

1. Warrant reply documents [It is reasonable to view that the “opportune to obtain a loan” which is the final objective of the Defendant’s establishing a physical card constitutes intangible economic interest, and for this purpose, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of lending (it is reasonable to evaluate that a person whose name is unknown can arbitrarily collect money deposited in the physical card account because he/she could allow him/her to withdraw money). As such, it constitutes an objective element of the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). Since the Defendant had a specific perception of the aforementioned objective facts, including the meaning of his/her act, it is so-called “Sporting” crime.