전자금융거래법위반
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely maintained the status as the opener of the head of the Tong, and did not have any pecuniary advantage, and did not think that the head of the passbook opened by the Defendant would be abused for the phishing crime.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant leased the access media as indicated in the judgment can be sufficiently recognized, and whether the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not have any property benefits or that the account under the name of the Defendant would be used for the phishing crime is irrelevant to the establishment of the instant crime.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. The lower court rendered a fine of KRW 400,00,000 to the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s act of transferring or lending the electronic financial transaction access media to another person is disadvantageous to the Defendant; (b) the act of transferring or lending it could cause damage to the unspecified majority because it can be used for fraud, such as Bosing, etc.; (c) the account of the access media that the Defendant actually used for the fraud; and (d) the Defendant, upon the suspension of payment of the money deposited by the victim, attempted to cancel the payment suspension by receiving the instructions from the defrauded; (b) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant recognized and against the instant crime; (c) the Defendant has no criminal record for the same type; and (d) the account was suspended and no actual damage occurred.
The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been determined by fully considering the above various circumstances, and up to the trial.