A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

In using and managing a means of access, no one shall lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act.

Nevertheless, on August 2018, the Defendant received the proposal that “I would pay 1.6 million won to the 3th day of the lending of the crow card” from the person who was not the deceased, and on the 29th day of the 2018th day of the 2018th day of the same month, in front of the Gunsan City, under the direction of the above person who was not the deceased, the Defendant sent the password to the Kwikset service article by using a text message in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to receive 1.6 million won in return, and lent the means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on replies;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the defendant recognized the crime and reflects the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment, and the crime of this case is a factor for sentencing favorable to the defendant. It is necessary to severely punish the means of access that infringes on the trust in electronic financial transactions and lends the means of access that is highly likely to be used for other criminal acts. The actual fact that the means of access leased by the defendant is deemed to have been used for the crime such as singishing, etc. is considered as a factor for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant. In addition, the punishment was determined as ordered in consideration of the defendant'