beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.11.13 2019노1851

전자금융거래법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (Violation of the Accounting Rules) The Defendant, while not receiving a loan from another place, was allowed to obtain a guidance on the loan of the person in distress of the name of the instant case, and the Defendant merely sent a physical card to the person in distress who believed the horses of the person in distress of name, and did not think that the physical card is used for the crime.

B. The sentence imposed on the original judgment of the court below on the unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant promised to obtain a loan from a person in a false name in a situation where it is difficult to obtain a loan from a person in a normal manner, and may recognize the fact that the Defendant lent a physical card so that he/she can use the means of access to electronic financial transactions.

The Defendant’s act constitutes an act of lending the means of access in return for payment under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019; and: (a) the circumstance in which the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Cze Card issued by the Defendant was used for the crime of Bosing is not affected by the establishment of the instant crime). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The fact that the defendant intends to obtain a loan in an economically difficult situation has come to the name-free person in this case, and the health status is not good.