Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall lend or lend any access medium for electronic financial transactions while receiving, demanding or promising the payment therefor.

On February 8, 2018, the Defendant received a mobile phone text message stating that “one million won per head of a Tong shall be paid if he/she lends a passbook” and sent the above text message to the person in secret, and agreed to receive one million won per head of the check card, and agreed to send two copies of the check card to the place designated by the above person in secret. On March 12, 2018, 2018, the Defendant sent two copies of the check card to the Busan-dong Busan-dong Busan-dong Busan-dong Department “Skwikset Swikset Swik-dong Department” to the above name in front of the department store. On March 12, 2018, the Defendant sent two copies of the check card linked to the bank account (Account number: B) and the bank account (Account Number: C) in Korea.

Accordingly, the defendant agreed to receive compensation and lent the access media for electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written complaints and statements of the draftD;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the damage situations, investigation reports (execution results of a warrant of search and seizure), investigation reports (an investigation by the nominal owner of the account used for committing the crime), text messages and Kakao Stockholm dialogue contents, and the details of transactions;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Although Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act do not state the provisions of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act under the applicable law, a prosecutor does not state the provisions of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act, the act of transferring a number of access media at once constitutes a case where several access media are committed by committing a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by a single act, and each crime is in a

It is reasonable to interpret (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530 Decided March 25, 2010). However, even if a public prosecution for one crime is recognized as an ordinary concurrence without changing the indictment, it is different from the legal evaluation of the number of crimes.