The defendant shall be innocent.

1. A summary of the facts charged is prohibited from lending the means of electronic financial transactions for consideration. However, while the Defendant was unable to receive money from the Defendant, the Defendant listens to the Defendant’s statement that he would pay money by opening an account under the name of the Defendant, and is willing to open a passbook under the name of the Defendant. On July 2012, 2012, at the above B’s house located under the name of the Defendant, the company bank passbook (Account Number:D) and the cash and security card, and the Internet banking ID and the account transaction application entered under the name of the Defendant was sent to B to B, and received KRW 2 million in return, and received KRW 2 million in return.

2. According to Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the act of lending a means of access without receiving any consideration is clear that the act of lending a means of access without receiving any consideration is not subject to punishment, and the interpretation of the language and text of the provision of the Act and the Criminal Act should be strict, and it is not permissible to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the provision to the disadvantage of the accused.

On the other hand, the defendant, consistent with the investigation agency and this court, issued a passbook (Account Number D), cash card and security card in the name of the defendant, and an account transaction application in the name of the defendant, and lent it to B. However, if B borrowed the passbook, he borrowed the passbook for the purpose of collecting the defendant's obligation by operating the business and paying the defendant's obligation, and thereafter, he stated that the notary public received the above passbook twice as part of the existing obligation amounting to KRW 50 million.