전자금융거래법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) (the Defendant lent three e-mail cards to a nameless person, but the above e-mail card was not usable because the above e-mail card was not known. Thus, it is not included in the lending of access media under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
2. Article 6(3)2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions shall not be construed as “any person who borrows or lends any access medium while demanding, demanding or promising the consideration, or distributing or delivering such medium, unless otherwise specifically provided by any other Act.”
Article 2 subparag. 10 of the same Act provides that "a means or information falling under any of the following items, which is used to issue a transaction instruction in electronic financial transactions in order to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of users and transaction details," and item (a) provides for a password necessary to use an electronic card and other electronic information equivalent thereto, or a password necessary to use a means or information referred to in item (a) or (b) in any of the following items:
Ultimately, it is reasonable to interpret the electronic card such as the e-mail card and the password necessary for the use of such electronic card as an independent access medium under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
Therefore, as long as the defendant lends three physical cards to a person who is not his/her name, it shall be deemed that he/she lent the access media prohibited by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and the defendant did not inform the person who is not his/her name of the password of each physical card.
Even if there is no influence on the establishment of a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so ordered as per Disposition.