The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no intention to transfer a means of access in mistake.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Transfer” under Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act does not include simply lending or allowing temporary use of the means of access (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16167, Jul. 5, 2012). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the records as follows. In other words, the Defendant opened an account on January 15, 2014, and opened Kwikset Service Articles, i.e., went beyond the cash card and password of the said account, and the Defendant argued that he would have allowed the Defendant to borrow a loan by accumulating the transaction performance, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the Defendant did not have confirmed the personal information or office of the person who received the above name or office at the time, and the period or method of return of cash cards, etc. was not determined, and the Defendant did not have any reason to conclude that the above Defendant had no intent to transfer the means of access within the same kind of crime from 2014 to 314 times.

B. There is no evidence to regard the Defendant as acquiring certain benefits, and there is no circumstance to consider the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s economic difficulties.