The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, received a proposal that the transaction performance was high to obtain a loan, and only delivered a physical card (hereinafter “instant physical card”) to a person who was not the name.

This does not constitute “lending the means of access while promising compensation” under Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of the relevant legal doctrine refers to the act of temporarily allowing another person to use the means of access without managing and supervising the user of the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising to receive compensation, and “compensation” refers to economic benefits corresponding to the lending of the means of access. In promising the user to obtain an opportunity to receive a loan, the means of access is temporarily lent to allow another person to use the means of access without managing and supervising the user, so that the user can temporarily use the means of access and conduct electronic financial transactions without managing and supervising the user, and the receipt of an opportunity to receive a loan can be deemed as having a quid pro quo relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The Defendant was unable to obtain a loan from a bank or other financial institution at the time of issuing the instant physical card to an unqualified person.

(Investigation Records 176-6 pages). (2) The defendant is called the Director of G Bank H of G Bank and I agency.