The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles that the Defendant would be able to get a loan.

On the other hand, since the access medium was only a dern, there was no intention to transfer the access medium, and if the access medium, such as a e-mail card and password, is delivered on the speech that the lending would be done, it cannot be deemed as a "transfer" of the access medium under Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act unless it is merely to delegate the temporary use of the access medium. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. In the first instance trial, the ex officio determination prosecutor changed "Article 49 (4) 1, Article 6 (3) 1, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act" to "Article 49 (4) 2, and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act," and applied for amendments to an amendment to an indictment with the content of changing the facts charged under the facts charged. Since this court's judgment was changed to the subject of adjudication by granting permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the grounds of appeal is related to the judgment of the court below as to the previous facts charged, and as long as the facts charged were changed by permitting amendments to indictment as above in the trial at the same time, the propriety of

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment below is ruled as follows through pleading.

【The criminal facts of this case】 The defendant committed a crime on October 2016, 201.