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

However, the execution of the above fine for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received an illegal loan proposal to the effect that “I will pay a little amount of money equal to the principal and interest of the loan each month on the card; and (b) accepted it on November 19, 2018, the Defendant sent to us the card connected to the account; (c) received an illegal loan proposal to the effect that “I will pay a little amount of money equal to the principal and interest of the loan; (d) the Defendant’s account holder and E Bank (F) bank account and E Bank account (G) bank account, and HI bank account (HI) bank account, if I will cause some customers to harm to personal money; and (e) the Defendant sent the card connected to the account.” (d) On November 19, 2018, the Defendant sent the password to us with the card.

Accordingly, the defendant agreed to pay for the means of access and delivered the means of access respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement;

1. A certificate of transfer confirmation and financial transaction information;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of J modernization;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The act of lending the means of access to electronic financial transactions, such as the instant crime, is in an indivisible relationship with the singishing crime, and there is a high need for strict sanctions against the act of lending the means of access under the circumstances where various singishing crimes, which have caused serious harm to our society due to the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act.

However, the fact that the defendant seems to have no profit from the crime of this case, and that he was the first offender without any previous conviction, etc. are more favorable.