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 one shall lend any means of access to electronic financial transactions while promising such consideration.

Nevertheless, the defendant will provide a loan of KRW 3 million to a person whose name is unknown on October 21, 2019.

This is a product that is a corporation, and if it is sent by opening a passbook and making a e-mail card, it will provide a loan to an individual.

“After receipt of a proposal to the effect that it was accepted, at around October 28, 2019, at a closed debate post office consisting of the slick-ro 366-gil 3, Daegu-si, Seogu, Seo-gu, Daegu-si, the Defendant’s name was delivered to the person whose name is not known by using a parcel-post office service connected to B Bank Account (C) in the name of the Defendant.

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. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding financial transaction information, such as receipts;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is likely to seriously affect society by not only impairing the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also creating a large number of victims by abusing the means of access, such as financial fraud, etc.

In fact, the means of access that the defendant lent was used for financial fraud crimes.

Considering these circumstances, it is true that there is a need for strict punishment against the defendant.

However, the defendant's acceptance of the crime of this case and again does not repeat the crime of this case, and he responded to the demand for provision on the ground of the loan.