The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) recognized that the Defendant’s proposal was not a normal loan transaction method in which the Defendant would withdraw the interest of the loan by using the bank account, on the one hand, when the Defendant received the loan from the lending institution and experienced this experience.

In light of the legislative purport of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act to ensure the reliability of the safety performance of electronic financial transactions, the term “price” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall be deemed not to be limited to direct and practical interests, but to all profits with a comprehensive payment relationship. The Defendant, in a bad credit position, issued a check for the purpose of receiving loans by comparing it with the proposal of the name influence who seeks to avoid unfair high interest rates in a situation where lending is impossible in a normal way due to bad credit standing, and thus, to obtain loans. The term “ intangible expected profits that may receive loans by an abnormal method” shall be deemed to fall under “price” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall be punished as “the act of the Defendant providing other person with an opportunity to use electronic financial transactions,” and the Defendant shall not be subject to punishment for the purpose of reducing the amount of loans to the Defendant’s name and the given opportunity to use the given product.”