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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall make a transaction request in electronic financial transactions or lend any means of access used to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of such transaction to any third person.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was indicted to the effect that “the Defendant transferred the means of access” on May 17, 2013, the head of the bank account (B) in the name of the Defendant in the vicinity of the New Twitk Station located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 17, 2013, when he/she borrowed an account from his/her name, he/she would offer KRW 1.80,000 per day if he/she borrowed the account from his/her name bad, and then consented thereto, and then, on May 17, 2013, he/she should be found to have lent the head of the bank, etc. for three months after the Defendant was paid KRW 1.80,00 per day and transferred the head of the bank, etc., and even if he/she did not go through the amendment procedures, it is not likely to hinder the Defendant’s defense rights. Therefore, the criminal facts should be recognized differently from the facts charged without the amendment procedures.

In the name of the defendant, the passbook, cash withdrawal card, and password of the one bank account (C) in the name of the defendant was lent to the person who was not the name of the defendant to lend each means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the submission of internal investigation reports;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Taking into account the fact that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is against the defendant, that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that each combined crime is in a commercial concurrent relationship.