The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant temporarily transferred access media for the purpose of lending, but the “price” under Article 6(3) Subparag. 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act means all forms of paid-in contributions. As such, the opportunity for the Defendant to obtain loans or loans that the Defendant gains from a person in unsound name should be deemed to be included in the above consideration.

Therefore, although the Defendant’s act constitutes “a lending of access media while demanding, demanding, or promising the consideration” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or legal doctrine that found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. No person who is the gist of the facts charged shall lend an access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration.

Nevertheless, the Defendant listened to the statement that “When sending a physical card, the Defendant would offer a so-called working loan that loans KRW 8 million after repeatedly counting credit rating from the entry and departure.” On October 20, 2016, around 16:30, the Defendant transferred the physical card in the name of the Defendant’s bank account B (C) and D bank account (E) and notified the password to the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant posted credit rating through the repeated transaction details of input money, and then lent an access medium to the needy party after promising the consideration for the loan.

B. The lower court’s determination is reasonable, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, that is, ① in the course of lending and receiving access media “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh” under the principle of statutoryism, and that the Defendant obtains by lending the above “hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh