전자금융거래법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not have any contact with the other party to receive his/her e-mail card; (b) while receiving KRW 3 million per month, he/she was unable to accurately memory the company’s trade name; and (c) did not agree on the method of refund of e-mail card. In light of such circumstances, the Defendant’s sending the e-mail card to the name-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de
2. Determination
A. In using and managing the means of access to electronic financial transactions, no person may transfer the means of access unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act.
Nevertheless, on May 16, 2013, the Defendant transferred the means of electronic financial transactions, such as the passbook (Account Number C), the passbook (Account Number D), the new bank passbook (Account Number D), three electronic financial transaction cards issued together with the new bank passbook (Account Number E), and the password (F) necessary for the use of the above card, to the above bearer.
B. The lower court’s judgment, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., the Defendant’s statement that he would open and lease a passbook from a person who was unaware of the name, and that he would make a settlement of accounts for the lending of the passbook, and that the original copy of the passbook was kept by the Defendant, and that the Defendant was in custody of the original copy of the passbook, and that the Defendant visited the relevant bank from the new bank to suspend the transaction of the agricultural bank account by visiting the contact recipient who was contacted that the account was illegally circulated from the new bank on May 23, 2013, and the Defendant was aware of the name (G), telephone number, facsimile number, etc. of the monetary counterpart company. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor is alone.