The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On September 11, 2013, at around 14:00, the Defendant transferred the means of access, such as cash cards and passwords, under the name of C (D) and the post office account (E) of the Defendant, opened by Kwikwikset Service Articles, to the name-oriented party via Kwikset Service Articles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The document and written statement of the F;

1. Details of financial transactions;

1. The meeting of financial information (C post office accounts);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Financial Information Society (CFC) and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 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. Fine of 2 million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence 59(1) of the Pronouncement of Sentence 2003 is interpreted to mean that the case where the defendant would not be subject to a new crime even if he did not sentence, considering the degree of reflectability, comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Code. On the contrary, the phrase “where the circumstances prior to the opening are obvious” in this context means the case where the defendant does not have a depth of the crime, or where the defendant denies the sentence without confession of the crime, it shall not be interpreted to mean that the suspension of sentence cannot be always made (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003). The defendant is the first offender, and the circumstances leading to the decision in the course of obtaining the loan, and the defendant also seems to have suffered damage by borrowing the loan from the person under whose name the name was unknown.”