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
No person shall lend a means of access, promising any consideration.
Nevertheless, around April 16, 2019, the Defendant accepted a proposal from a person who has no personal name to pay KRW 1 million per head of the household in return for the lending of the check, and around 17:00 the following day, the Defendant sent the check card to the person who has no personal name to the third bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant, which is a means of access connected to the third bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant, in front of the building in Seocho-gu, Changwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and sent the above account password to the telephone.
Accordingly, the Defendant promised to receive compensation and lent the means of access.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement to E by the police;
1. Details of remittance transactions, details of account transactions, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;
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.