Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall commit any act of lending any means of access while promising to use and manage the means of access.

Nevertheless, around June 4, 2019, the Defendant accepted a proposal to the effect that “on the face of sending the check, if you will carry out the loan after confirmation,” from the person who has not been named, and sent the check card to the person who has not been named on the same day through Kwikset service, which is the means of access connected to the B (C) account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a means of access with the promise to receive an intangible expected profit to implement the loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the details of remittance and account transactions;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of the provisional payment order is based on a comprehensive consideration of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the contents and circumstances of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, as set forth in the order.

The act of lending means of access is not only detrimental to the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also it is necessary to strictly cope with the risk of massing a large number of victims because it is used for other crimes.

The means of access leased by the accused was actually used for the fraud crime.

A favorable circumstance: The Defendant recognized the instant crime and did not repeat the same mistake.

Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime in the past.