전자금융거래법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On March 15, 2019, the Defendant received a loan fraud proposal to the effect that “a credit rating should be obtained by accumulating transaction performance in order to obtain a loan, and for this purpose, a physical card under the Defendant’s name is required.” On March 15, 2019, the Defendant sent one physical card (including a password) connected to the Defendant’s name to the B Bank account in the name of the Defendant’s name using the line at the selling post office located in the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si around March 15, 2019.
Accordingly, the Defendant promised to receive compensation and lent the means of access.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A written petition and a written statement;
1. Application of the contents of conversation, details of remittance, and Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the selection of punishment;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of the provisional payment order is based on a comprehensive consideration of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the contents and circumstances of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, as set forth in the order.
The act of lending means of access is not only detrimental to the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also it is necessary to strictly cope with the risk of massing a large number of victims because it is used for other crimes.
The means of access leased by the accused was actually used for the fraud crime.
A favorable circumstance: The Defendant recognized the instant crime and did not repeat the same mistake.
Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime in the past.