전자금융거래법위반
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. Except as otherwise provided for in other Acts, no person charged shall lend any access medium while receiving, demanding or promising the payment thereof in using and managing the access medium;
On September 11, 2017, the Defendant sent a physical card of the Saemaul Treasury Account (Account Number: D) in the name of the Defendant to an unsatisfying person, and then sent it to a home-time, in that it is located in the Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, Sinsan on September 11, 2017, in the name of the Defendant.
The United States of America took part in the past.
2. On March 13, 2018, the Defendant: “On September 11, 2017, the Defendant would give 1600,000 won of operating expenses on a face-to-face loan account to the trading company for two (2) days, from a person in secret name in Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, U.S. on September 11, 2017.”
“In receipt of the proposal, “The Credit Card under the name of the Defendant (E) and one copy of the physical card connected to the Saemaul Treasury’s account under the name of the Defendant was dried through the name of the Non-Appellant.
“The facts charged charged (hereinafter “the facts charged prior to the prosecution”) was prosecuted on May 18, 2018, and was sentenced to a fine of two million won in the first instance trial on May 18, 2018 (Seoul High Court Decision 2018Da342), and the said case is continuing to be in the appellate trial (defluent District Court Decision 2018No. 2018No. 1583).
The prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the prosecution of this case constitutes a case in which a public prosecution is instituted again.