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

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in any other Act, no one shall lend a means of access with the receipt, request or promise of compensation in using and managing the means of access used in electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, at around 16:00 on November 8, 2018, the Defendant: (a) obtained a call from a person without personal name to the effect that “a loan is to be made; (b) to increase the transaction performance; (c) to send a false transaction performance to the passbook under the name of the Defendant; and (d) sent one check card connected to the DNA bank account (Account Number: E) in order to obtain a loan by making a false transaction performance on the passbook under the name of the Defendant; and (c) sent one check card to the person without personal name to Kwikset service; and (d) notified the password of the above check via F Mesen.

As a result, the Defendant demanded in return for an intangible expected profit of receiving future loans, and lent the check, which is a means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on written confirmation of the results of transfer of electronic financial transactions and response data requested for information;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, lending of the means of access, such as the instant crime, is an act that facilitates various crimes, such as tax evasion, Internet gambling, and scaming, and such social harm is serious.

The crime of this case led to the occurrence of Bosing damage, and the damage was not compensated.

However, it is against the fact that the defendant does not repeat again by recognizing his mistake, and it is the first crime, and due to the crime of this case.