A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall, with respect to the use and management of a means of access, borrow or lend a means of access or store, deliver or distribute a means of access with the knowledge that such means are to be used for a crime or to be used for a crime.

Nevertheless, around October 12, 2018, the Defendant received a proposal to the effect that “When sending a physical card, the Defendant will increase credit by repeating the withdrawal from the face-to-face.” On the same day, the Defendant sent two copies of the physical card linked to the bank account in the name of the Defendant (Account Number: D and E) in front of the Defendant’s home located in Daegu-gu Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, Kwikset’s office, using Kwikset’s service.

Accordingly, the Defendant knowingly delivered the means of access used in electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The document of F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (account A telephone investigation),-C bank reply data, investigation report (additional check cards transferred by a suspect and file of transaction details);

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 3 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 imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant crime”) is that the instant crime is likely to be abused as a means of other crimes as well as impairing the safety and trust of financial transactions. Therefore, strict punishment is required.

In addition, the defendant lent two physical cards, and the fact that the means of access that the defendant lent was actually used for the fraud crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, and it seems that he did not gain any specific benefit from the crime of this case, and the defendant is a drinking driver in around 2013.