beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.06.13 2019노292

전자금융거래법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding person and the prosecutor of the misapprehension of the legal principle stated only as “the fact-finding person” in the grounds for appeal, but also appears to include the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles in light of the purport of the allegation. As such, the “price” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act includes not only money, goods, and other property interests, but also all tangible and intangible profits sufficient to meet human demand and desire, and also includes “any intangible expected profit that executes the loan” as well as the above “price.”

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendant or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In using and managing the means of access in this case, no person may lend the means of access by accepting, demanding or promising compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, on August 24, 2018, the Defendant, who was misrepresented as B Bank staff, promised to “on the face of sending a physical card, he would make loans by accumulating false transaction records,” and sent a copy of the physical card connected to the company bank account (C) account in the name of the Defendant on September 4, 2018, to the nameless person.

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive intangible expected gains from future loans and lent the means of access to a person who is not his/her name.

3. The judgment of the court below is reasonable to deem that the defendant provided the means of access as a means to obtain a loan by deceiving the end of the time when the defendant needs a loan, and there is no direct quid pro quo between the defendant's delivery act and the expected profit of the loan, or such act.