beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.10.30 2019고단2308

전자금융거래법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 19, 2019, the Defendant accepted a proposal and sent a e-mail card from a telephone financial fraud assistance employee in a name-free place to the effect that “The Defendant will lend 2 million won to the delivery of the e-mail card for the repayment of principal and interest.” On March 20, 2019, the Defendant sent the e-mail card connected to the e-mail bank account (D) account in the name of the Defendant to the Kwikset service delivery officer who sent the e-mail financial fraud organization at the e-mail office located in Kimnam-si, Kim-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant promised to transfer the means of access.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of transfer and receipt of letters;

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.

Defendant

In addition, while promising to lend the passbook, it was damaged by deceiving 2,300,000 won from the Bohishing criminal.