The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles the Defendant heard and issued a statement that the instant check needs to be granted for the Defendant’s loan from a person who was unaware of his name.

However, given that a person who leased an object uses it for his/her own interest or purpose, the delivery of a e-mail card to the Defendant for his/her own loan rather than the Defendant, as the Defendant, is not a “loan of access media” prohibited by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, but is merely an entrustment or delivery for the Defendant’s loan management.

In addition, the Defendant’s opportunity to obtain a loan may not be deemed to fall under “price” as provided by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. “Lending a means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act to determine erroneous determination or misapprehension of legal principles means lending a means of access so that another person may temporarily use the means of access without managing and supervising the user of the means of access when receiving, demanding or promising to receive compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8957, Aug. 18, 2017). “Price” refers to economic benefits that correspond to the lending of the means of access.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946 Decided June 27, 2019). In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by records, the lower court’s finding of guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake and mistake.