The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The fact-misunderstanding person is willing to lend a substitute loan at a low interest rate;

At the same time, the head of the Tong must raise the transaction performance, and the head of the Tong only issued the e-mail card, and did not recognize the fact that the e-mail card was used for the phishing crime.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize a consideration relationship between the defendant's issuance of access media and the receipt of an opportunity to receive a loan because the defendant thought it as a process of receiving a loan and issued a check card, and it does not exercise the right to use the check card in return for the loan.

B. Judgment of the court below which rendered an unfair sentencing: 5 million won.

2. “Lending of access media” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act means lending of access media to another person temporarily using an electronic financial transaction without managing and supervising the user of the access medium while receiving, demanding, or promising to receive, or promising to receive, consideration. “Price” refers to the economic benefit corresponding to the lending of the access medium (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). The term “price” refers to the economic benefit in a relationship corresponding to the lending of the access medium (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). The motive and circumstance leading up to the delivery of the access medium, the number of subordinate teachers’ school programs, the behavior or circumstances after the teachers, and whether there was an agreement on the recipient, amount, interest rate, and method of receiving loans with respect to loans that have become the motive for the assignment of the access medium, if objectively determined in light of relevant circumstances.

It should be seen.