A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

No defendant may lend a means of access used in electronic financial transactions to any person engaged in cargo transport business, or any person who receives, demands, or promises to receive any consideration.

Nevertheless, on February 25, 2019, the Defendant called from a name infinite who assumes the staff of a liquor company from the name infinite who assumes the name infinite-dong (hereinafter referred to as "on the basis of lending the eck card for tax reduction and exemption, 2 million won in return for the three-time use", and sent a 3-mail password by using one eck card connected to the Nong Bank (B) account in the name of the Defendant via the post office.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to provide compensation and lent the means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the NongHyup Account under suspect name;

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 choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the defendant recognized the crime and reflects the fact that there is no same criminal record, and the crime of this case is a factor for sentencing favorable to the defendant. The crime of this case requires strict punishment because it infringes on trust in electronic financial transactions and lends the means of access to other criminal acts is highly likely to be used for other criminal acts. The actual fact that the means of access leased by the defendant is deemed to have been used for the crime such as singishing, etc. is considered to be the factor for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant. In addition, the punishment was determined as ordered in consideration of the defendant'