The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant only delivered a e-mail card and its password for the purpose of testing and trusting the horses of the person in charge of the lending company, and did not lend the e-mail card in return for the loan. However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, which lack evidence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

In addition, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's willful negligence solely on the ground that the defendant has the same criminal records and the defendant's statement is doubtful is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine was enacted to clarify the legal relationship of the electronic financial transaction to ensure the safety and reliability of the electronic financial transaction (Article 1). “The act of lending a means of access while receiving, demanding or promising the payment” is prohibited (Article 6(3)2), and the person who lends a means of access is punished in violation of Article 6(3)2.

(Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the act of temporarily allowing another person to use the means of access without managing and supervising the user of the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising to receive compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8957, Aug. 18, 2017); and “price” refers to the economic benefit corresponding to the lending of the means of access; and the obtaining of opportunity to receive a loan can be deemed as “price” of the means of access.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946 Decided June 27, 2019). In addition, if the defendant denies the intention, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent itself can be objectively proved.