The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The “written grounds for appeal” submitted by the defendant after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal shall be deemed to the extent that it supplements legitimate grounds for appeal.

The defendant merely provided a means of access in the course of receiving a loan from a person who misrepresented the D organization staff, and does not lend the means of access in return for compensation, but does not constitute an intangible expectation profit that can receive a loan in the future.

Judgment

“Lending a means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the act of lending a means of access so that any other person may temporarily use the means of access without managing or supervising the user of the means of access (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8957, Aug. 18, 2017). In promising to obtain an opportunity to receive a loan, the lending of a means of access would temporarily allow any other person to use the means of access without managing or supervising the user of the means of access and obtaining an opportunity to receive a loan even in a situation where it is difficult to receive a loan by normal means, there is room to view that there is a relationship corresponding to the lending of the means of access, that is, a quid pro quo relationship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). Examining the legal doctrine as seen earlier based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant lent the means of access to a person who was unaware of his/her name in return for an intangible expected profit, which is more opportunities to obtain a loan than the amount that can be obtained by a normal method, as such, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant asked L Bank, a principal bank, for the necessity of KRW 40 million with a deposit money, to obtain a loan because the maximum amount of loan does not exceed KRW 15 million.