전자금융거래법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
In using and managing the means of access, no one may borrow or lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.
Nevertheless, on July 13, 2018, the defendant received a proposal that "I will use the passbook for three days if I want to avoid tax control, I will use it for three million won if I borrowed the passbook, and give three million won as a honorarium." On the same day, I sent a copy of the CB card connected to the CB bank account (Account Number D) in the name of the defendant to Ikset through Kwikset Service.
Accordingly, the defendant committed an act of lending the means of access while promising compensation.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. E/Sgd. and written statements;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transfer and details of account transactions;
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.