Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall engage in any act of lending or lending a means of access used to make a transaction request in electronic financial transactions or to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of such transaction, or keeping, delivering or distributing a means of access while demanding, demanding or promising to do so.

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2015, if the Defendant borrowed the head of the Tong from a person who was unaware of his/her name, he/she received a proposal that he/she would offer up to one million won according to the actual usage of the head of the Tong, and stated that the means of access is “transfer” in the charges of lending the means of access by delivering a post office passbook (D) and a physical check card, etc. at the C convenience store located adjacent to B at the Jeju city. However, in full view of the overall, the Defendant’s act appears to have been regarded as having been committed by the act of lending the means of access, and thus, the Defendant’s act is corrected

A. Summary of the evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written petition;

1. Application of the reply statutes to requests for the provision of financial transaction information;

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 act of transferring or lending the means of access to electronic financial transactions on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict restraint as to the stability and reliability of electronic financial transactions and the subject of such transfer can be abused for crimes, such as singinginging fraud, etc. However, the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under economic circumstances where it is difficult for the Defendant to properly recognize such social adverse effects as above. The fact that the Defendant did not have any profit acquired by the instant crime, the number of means of access transferred by the Defendant is not large, the Defendant is against the Defendant at the time of committing the crime, and the Defendant is more severe than the same criminal record