Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall borrow or lend any access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration in using or managing the access medium.

Nevertheless, on December 15, 2017, the Defendant would pay the consideration if he lends the account to a person who is in the name of the defendant, because the account is necessary for tax reduction or exemption.

“On the basis of the text of the phrase “,” and promised to receive KRW 2 million for a name in French currency, and then, at around 16:00 on the same day, the document sent one physical card connected to the account (D) in the name of the Defendant to the account of KEB Han Bank in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

As a result, the defendant committed an act of lending the access media with promising to pay for the use and management of the access media.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transaction lists by account;

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 to lend the electronic financial transaction access medium with the promise of consideration for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the said Act is that it would undermine the stability and reliability of the electronic financial transaction and may be abused for other crimes such as singinginginging fraud, etc. In fact, the fact that the victim of the fraudulent crime occurred through the access medium leased by the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant. The fact that the Defendant is against the mistake, the fact that the Defendant is against the wrong fact, the fact that the Defendant would not actually receive the consideration for the lending of the access medium, and the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding

In addition to the above circumstances, the records of this case and the theory of changes are shown.