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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, he shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall transfer any access medium used in electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, the Defendant listened to the purport that “When sending a debit card, etc. connected to the account under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant would offer a loan of KRW 15 million after repeatedly counting credit rating.” On August 22, 2016, around 15:00, the Defendant issued a debit card of the post office account under the name of the Defendant to the needy person via a personal taxi article in front of the Defendant’s residence in Kim Jong-si, and notified him of the password by telephone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (the date of the second public trial shall be the date);

1. E statements;

1. A written inquiry about the results of transfer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes about details of financial transactions;

1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions for the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The defendant guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order provides that he/she may not transfer his/her nameless person his/her debit card which is a medium access to electronic financial transactions, to another person temporarily use in order to obtain a loan, and the defendant did not transfer it.

The charges are denied by asserting that they are facts charged.

However, according to each evidence of the judgment, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Defendant’s statement that he would receive a loan in a situation where he/she suffered economic difficulties, and the Defendant issued the Defendant’s debit card to an individual taxi article who sent his/her name to him/her.

The statement was made. At the time, the defendant did not verify whether the loan company's employee who contacted the defendant is "F" and the company's trade name, location of office, etc. is actually located, or whether the loan company is an actual company, except for the fact that he knows his telephone number.