Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, no one shall lend or lend any access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration.

On February 27, 2018, at around 12:00, the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 3,00,000,000 from the street in front of the "CMat", which is located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, to receive KRW 3,00,00,000 from the user fee for three days on the face of lending the passbook to the person without the name of the Defendant. Through Kwikset service article, the Defendant sent the person without the name of the Defendant, one head of the physical card connected to the community credit cooperative account

Accordingly, the defendant agreed to the other party to lend the approaching media.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. (E), an application for deposit transactions, and details of transactions (A) applying the laws and regulations;

1. Article 49 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 49 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions through which punishment is selected, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the same Act, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that lending of an access medium to electronic financial transactions with the promise of compensation for the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is in need of strict punishment inasmuch as it harms the stability and reliability of the electronic financial transaction and may be abused for other crimes, such as singinginging fraud, etc. In fact, the fact that the victim of the fraudulent crime has occurred through the access medium leased by the defendant, and that the possibility that his access medium may be used for other illegal purposes may have been predicted in light of the content proposed by the non-person in light of the fact that the defendant was normal and unfavorable to the defendant, the fact that the defendant was committed against the mistake and did not repeat the crime, and that he did not receive

The fact that the statement is made is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of all the factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case including the above circumstances.