On August 2014, the Defendant transferred the means of access to electronic financial transactions to D through the head of the post office (C) in the name of the Defendant’s father at the coffee shop located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

2. Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the territorial jurisdiction is defined as the place of crime, the address, residence or present location of the defendant.

However, the charge stated in the facts charged in this case is Yongsan-gu Seoul, and the defendant's address, residence or present location is judged not to fall under the jurisdiction of this court as the Council city, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that this court has territorial jurisdiction.

3. In conclusion, the instant public prosecution was instituted in violation of territorial jurisdiction. Since the Defendant submitted an application for adjudication of violation of territorial jurisdiction to the court on August 5, 2016, which was before the Defendant’s statement of the case prosecuted, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act.