전자금융거래법위반
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. No person who outlines the facts charged may lend a means of access used for electronic financial transactions while receiving, demanding or promising any consideration;
Nevertheless, on April 2018, the Defendant heard the proposal that “The Defendant would charge a fee of KRW 500,000 per week on the day when the passbook is leased” from a person who was not the name of the Defendant, and around 13:00 the following day, the Defendant received physical check cards, passbooks, OTP cards, and passwords connected to the DNA bank account (Account Number E) under the name of the Defendant in Seongdong-gu Seoul building following Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 13:00.
Accordingly, the Defendant received compensation and lent the means of access.
2. Determination
(a) Where a public prosecution has been instituted again for a case in which a public prosecution has been instituted (the same case as the case in 2018 Highest 3028);
(b) Grounds for judgment dismissing public prosecution (Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act);