Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

In using and managing the means of access, no one may lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act.

On April 17, 2019, the Defendant received text messages that he would give a loan, and requested consultation on such text messages, and proposed that “a loan will be made” by telephone from the nameless person who confirmed the text messages. On April 2019, the Defendant gave consent thereto, and then lent one check card connected to the D Bank Account (Account Number: E) under the name of the Defendant at C Contracting State located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government, Incheon, through Kwikset Service Articles.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive a future loan in return for an intangible expected profit, and lent the means of access to a person who has no name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an account warrant reply;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. Sentencing the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of the provisional payment order is highly likely to cause secondary damage, such as fraud, by abusing the means of electronic financial transactions to crime.

In fact, the means of access that the Defendant loans was used for telephone financial fraud, such as remitting the connected account of KRW 16.85 million and withdrawing KRW 2 million among them.

However, there are circumstances to consider that the number of means of access leased by the defendant is limited to one, and that the defendant lends a loan by raising credit rating.

It seems that there is no profit earned by the defendant due to the crime of this case, and part of the amount deposited into the account with telephone financial fraud has not been withdrawn by the suspension of payment.