전자금융거래법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On November 15, 2013, around 15:00, the Defendant transferred the means of access to a person who is not aware of his/her name through a door-to-door, such as a head of the Tong, the head of the Tong (D), the head of the post office (E), and the cash card.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Attachment of data on response to financial transaction information, application for subscription, and application of the details of financial transaction and the Acts and subordinate statutes thereof;
1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning facts constituting an offense;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;
1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The defendant transferred the means of access by sending via C, around November 15, 2013, the head of the Suhyup Bank (D) and the head of the Tong (E), and the head of the Tong (E), which are established in the name of the defendant at the office of the head of the Si located in Busan B, on November 7, 2013.”
In light of the records, the Defendant was prosecuted by the Daegu District Prosecutor’s Office on January 29, 2014 by the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. After the case was transferred to this court, the Defendant continued to serve as the court 2014 high-level220 prior to the consolidation. On February 24, 2014, the indictment was instituted on the charge of violating the said Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and it is evident that the facts charged in the instant case, which had already been prosecuted, are the same as the facts charged of violating the said Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which had been pending.
Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case in which the public prosecution is instituted again.