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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

No person shall transfer or take over a means of access, or lend or take over a means of access in return for compensation.

On May 31, 2019, the Defendant promised to “to send a e-mail card, if you send it, to execute the loan by piling up transaction records” from a person who has no personal standing in front of his residence in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and sent one e-mail card connected to the Defendant’s name Cbank account (Account Number:D) to that person via Kwikset Service Articles.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive a future loan in return for the intangible expected interest, and lent the means of access used in electronic financial transactions to a person who is named in the name.

Summary of Evidence

1. The receipt transferred to the defendant by the police interrogation protocol E;

1. Account transactions (No. 5 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. Application for examination (No. 6 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. The Kakao Stockholm dialogue;

1. Application of text messages to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 17297, May 19, 202; hereinafter the same) on criminal facts; the selection of a fine, the selection of a fine, etc.

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant borrowed the Defendant’s check at the end of the false statement of the person who was named in the name that requires the check card, and the Defendant merely sent the Defendant’s check to the person who was named in the name, but did not transfer the Defendant’s right to free use of the Defendant’s check for the purpose of obtaining an opportunity to obtain a loan, and there is no quid pro quo relationship between sending the Defendant’s check and obtaining an opportunity to obtain a loan. As such, the Defendant’s act committed an act with the promise to borrow