The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment below. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the grounds of appeal, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the allegation in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, according to the Defendant’s statement made at the investigation agency, the lower court held that ① the circumstance in which the Defendant sent the e-mail card is able to obtain future loans by raising the Defendant’s credit rating; ② profits include not only money, goods, and other property interests, but also all tangible and intangible profits sufficient to meet the people’s demand and desire, and thus, intangible expected profits to obtain loans by raising credit rating are also included in the “price” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. ③ The Defendant planned to obtain a return of the e-mail card from the non-name and sent the e-mail card to the Defendant, which constitutes the Defendant’s lending performance and the Defendant’s lending performance constitutes the Defendant’s lending performance.

Even if such an act cannot be deemed to be simply a “means to obtain a loan”, and ④ the Defendant sent a check to the interest that the Defendant may receive a loan that was promised by a person in the name of the person and the name of the person who is not his/her name.