A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. No person who violates the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall borrow or lend a means of access, or keep, deliver or distribute a means of electronic financial transactions in receiving, demanding or promising any compensation therefor;

On August 20, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from a person who misrepresents “B employee C” from a person whose name is not known to him; (b) that “it is necessary to open a lending Maspbook up to 20 million won; and (c) it is required to leave the Maspbook to the Maspbook; and (d) sent the Masp Card connected to the D Account (E) in the name of the Defendant on August 28, 2019, via Kwikset Service Articles.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive an intangible expected profit of receiving a loan and lent the means of access.

2. On August 20, 2019, the Defendant: (a) obtained a proposal from a name-free person who assumes the “F G office head; (b) obtained a loan with a maximum of KRW 20 million at a low interest rate of 6.8% regardless of credit rating; (c) obtained a loan by creating a transaction performance due to lack of credit rating; (d) withdrawn money deposited in the current account as a check; and (e) sent money deposited in cash again to the employee who sent them by changing the cash again; and (e) notified the Defendant of the D account (E) in the name of the Defendant.

On August 28, 2019, an employee of the telephone financial fraud commission (hereinafter referred to as “singinging”) called “the interest rate on existing loans is high, and it is possible to lend up to 57 million won to 8.9% since the repayment of the existing loans is high, and the credit rating is high, and it is possible to lend up to 57 million won” to the victim H. On August 29, 2019, he was wired from the victim H to D account in the name of the above Defendant. At that time, he was misrepresenting the victim I to the employee of the lending company.