[Criminal Power] On September 25, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Trademark Act at the Seoul Central District Court on September 25, 2014, and was released on July 30, 2015 during the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Central District Court and passed the parole period on September 22, 2015.

[Criminal Facts] In using and managing the means of access, no person shall transfer or acquire any means of access unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act.

1. Crimes committed on February 18, 2016;

On February 18, 2016, the Defendant transferred to Kwikset service article that sent the unclaimed name of Bohishing Organization, on the road in front of ○○○○○○, Mapo-gu, Seoul, ○○○○○○, Inc. (****-*****************************) the physical card connected to the name of the Defendant.

2. The crime committed on April 19, 2016;

On April 19, 2016, the Defendant transferred Kwikset service article that sent to Kwikset service articles who had not received the name of Boksetishing organization, on the road in front of ○○○○○, Mapo-gu, Seoul, ○○○○○○, Inc. (*******************) the physical card connected to the Defendant’s wife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement related to C and D;

1. Previous records as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, statements on account transactions, details of financial transactions, and records on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (verification of the fact that the period of repeated crimes of suspects is the period of repeated crimes and reporting attached to the judgment);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; each choice of imprisonment; 1. Article 35(1) of the Cumulative Criminal Act; Article 37 of the Cumulative Criminal Act; Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Cumulative Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendant appears to have sufficiently known the occurrence of the secondary crime resulting from the transfer of the means of access because he/she was placed in several times due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the transfer of the means of access. Considering the fact that the means of access actually transferred by the Defendant was used for the scaming crime, the Defendant was a repeated offender, etc., the Defendant should be punished with strict punishment. However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and the living environment of the victim, etc., the punishment shall be determined as per the order.

Judge Upper-gu