Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

In using and managing the means of access, no one may lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

On April 29, 2019, the Defendant received a text message, “B guidance on D D D D D D D D D’s account in the name of the Defendant,” and received a proposal, “Skwikset service,” and then sent the main transaction passbook, three-month transaction statement, and C’s check to Kwikset service.” At that time, the Defendant lent a copy of C’s personal card, linked to D’s account in the name of the Defendant, to Kwikset, through Kwikset service engineer.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive a future loan in return for an intangible expected profit, and lent the means of access to a person who has no name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the details of transfer and H dialogue;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserts to the effect that obtaining an opportunity to obtain a loan does not constitute a consideration. However, while promising to obtain an opportunity to obtain a loan, the defendant temporarily lent a means of access to allow another person to use an electronic financial transaction without managing and supervising the user of the means of access, and obtaining an opportunity to obtain a loan even in a situation where it is difficult for the defendant to obtain a loan in a normal manner is reasonable to deem that there exists a quid pro quo relationship corresponding to the lending of the means of access (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019).