전자금융거래법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant does not commit each crime stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below.
B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case with the same purport as denying all the crimes specified in each of the facts charged of this case. The lower court rendered a decision not to accept the Defendant’s assertion by clarifying detailed reasons in the “judgment on the Defendant’s argument” among the “judgment on the Defendant’s argument” in the lower judgment. Examining the lower court’s aforementioned judgment by closely comparing it with the record and examination, it is acceptable to accept it.
B. In 2013, even though the Defendant had had had had had the record of suspending the indictment twice for the same crime as the instant crime, each of the instant crimes was committed again, the Defendant again committed an offense in violation of each of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Furthermore, when the money deposited into the new bank account under the name of the Defendant was transferred to the new bank account (K) account under the name of the Defendant in the name of the victim H and L because the lending of private financial rights is needed in order to obtain a loan from the victim H and L without the name, and the money deposited into the new bank account under the name of the Defendant was transferred to the new bank account under the name of the Defendant in the name of the name of the deceased, even though the Defendant directly withdraws the money, thereby denying all of the instant crimes up to the trial, and thus, it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not have any significant history of punishment exceeding the fine after being punished by the suspension of the execution of imprisonment in 192.