The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) reveals that the Defendant was holding a physical card for his/her own interest for the purpose of obtaining a loan, and thus constitutes an agreement on the lending of the means of access. The Defendant delivered the physical card under the pretext of principal and interest withdrawal so that the borrower may conduct electronic financial transactions using the physical card without managing and supervising the Defendant, and thus, constitutes “the case where the borrower, who is a lending business entity, does not allow another person to conduct electronic financial transactions at will using the means of access in return for the loan,” and it is reasonable to deem that he/she lent the means of access in return for the payment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case.

2. The lower court, on the premise that the delivery of a means of access, rather than the means for receiving a loan, can be deemed as allowing another person to conduct electronic financial transactions at will using the means of access, even if dolusently, it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, rather than the means for receiving a loan, allow another person to conduct electronic financial transactions at will using the means of access, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the grounds that there is no other evidence to prove this.

Examining the above judgment of the court below by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.