전자금융거래법위반
This case shall not be under the jurisdiction of the court.
1. Although an electronic financial transaction in the facts charged of the instant case did not issue a transaction request or transfer or acquire a means of access, such as an electronic card, used to secure the accuracy and truth of users and transaction details, the Defendant received a proposal from a person who would give KRW 2 million per one if the Defendant lends the passbook, and around November 4, 2013, transferred the means of access, such as a passbook and cash card, in the vicinity of the Defendant’s dwelling in Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, through Kwikset’s service.
2. Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides territorial jurisdiction as the place of crime, the defendant’s domicile, residence, or present location. The crime scene, the defendant’s domicile, and the present location stated in the facts charged in the instant case are all determined not to fall under the jurisdiction of this court as Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the territorial jurisdiction of this case exists in this court. Meanwhile, it is recognized that the defendant filed an application for lack of jurisdiction with the Seoul Northern District Court on July 9, 2014, which was the day before the defendant’s statement was made.
Thus, since the prosecution of this case was instituted in violation of jurisdiction, it is decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act.