전자금융거래법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
Except as otherwise provided for in any other Act, no one shall transfer any access medium used to issue a transaction instruction in electronic financial transactions or to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of such transaction.
Despite such fact, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from a person in the name of the deceased, and around 10:00 on December 22, 2015, at the factory in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant issued Kwikset a paper, using Kwikset service, stating a e-mail card (Account Number:D) connected to the Saemaul Treasury Account in the name of the Defendant at the factory in the name of the Defendant C in the Seosung City B and its password.
Accordingly, the defendant transferred the access media used in electronic financial transactions.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Each police statement made to E and F;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as verification certificates, Aro details, details of financial transactions, and applications for deposit transactions;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions through which punishment is selected (excluding punishment);
2. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.
3. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Provisional Payment Order is that the transfer of an access medium for electronic financial transactions, such as the instant crime, can be used as another means of crime, and the nature of such crime is not somewhat weak.
In fact, the access media transferred by the Defendant was used for the so-called “singing” crime, which is a telephone financing fraud, and the damage was caused thereby.
On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant was committing the crime of this case and his mistake is divided.
The instant crime was committed once, and the Defendant appears to have no profit derived therefrom, and it does not seem to have directly participated in the instant crime, other than the instant crime.
Until now, there was no criminal record that the defendant was punished for the same crime or sentenced to a fine heavier than that of the fine.
. The above.