전자금융거래법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) reveals that the Defendant had a physical card for his/her own interest for the purpose of obtaining a loan, which constitutes an act of promising “price” as to the lending of the means of access. The Defendant delivered the physical card under the pretext of principal and interest withdrawal so that a borrower may conduct electronic financial transactions using the physical card without the Defendant’s supervision, and thus, constitutes an act of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus, constitutes an act of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The lower court, on the premise that the delivery of a means of access, rather than the means for receiving a loan, can be deemed as allowing another person to conduct electronic financial transactions at will using the said means of access, even if dolusently, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, rather than the means for receiving a loan, allow another person, such as the influsor, etc., to conduct electronic financial transactions at will by using the said means of access, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove this.
Examining the above judgment of the court below by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.