전자금융거래법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only lost his/her check card and did not transfer it.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant guilty of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is erroneous.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of causing special property damage, etc. by this court on April 11, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive on November 26, 2019 (Seoul Western District Court 2018 High Court 2464, 3973, 4098, 2019No498, and 2019Do1103) is recognized. The instant crime is concurrent with the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, punishment for the instant crime should be sentenced in consideration of equity with the case where a judgment becomes final and conclusive at the same time. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following 3.
3. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued in the lower court that this part of the grounds for appeal was the same, and the lower court held that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the Defendant did not have a password on the Defendant’s physical card; and (c) the passbook stating the same password as the physical card was lost before the passbook was lost; (b) the above assertion was not persuasive and it was unlikely that the person who acquired the lost physical card knew of the password’s password as the non-commercial route; (c) the third party who used the above physical card for the withdrawal of the crime of Bophishing fraud was in possession of the above physical card; and (c) the Defendant himself was aware of the password at the lower court’s court’s court.