The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with the intention to ask a person who misrepresented H staff to confirm the possible amount of loan by deceiving him/her, and delivery of one copy of the Do bank account in the name of the defendant to the above person in a false name. Thus, the defendant does not lend the means of access while promising the above person to pay for

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant lent the means of access with the promise of compensation, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is established to clarify the legal relationship of electronic financial transactions to ensure the safety and reliability of the electronic financial transaction (Article 1); “The act of lending the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising the payment (Article 6(3)2); and the person who lends the means of access in violation of such provision is punished (Article 49(4)2). “Lending the means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the act of lending the means of access to the use of the means of access without managing and supervising the user of the means of access so that any other person can be allowed to use the means of access without taking into account the following circumstances as a whole when taking into account: (a) the electronic financial transaction act was established to ensure the security and reliability of the electronic financial transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8957, Aug. 18, 2017); and (b) “Price” refers to the economic benefit corresponding to the lending of the means of access (see, 2016946.