beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.25 2017고단2442

전자금융거래법위반

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Except as otherwise provided for in any other Act, no one shall lend any access medium with the promise of compensation in using and managing any medium access to electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, on March 2017, the Defendant issued one copy of the physical card linked to the Nonghyup Bank Account (C) in the name of the Defendant and the Enterprise Bank Account (D) through Kwikset Service, to the name-oriented person, on the road in front of the Defendant’s residence located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and from his name-oriented person, “If the account that received money is needed to save tax to engage in alcoholic beverage wholesale business, it would be KRW 2 million per each.”

As a result, the Defendant promised to pay for, lent the electronic financial transaction access media.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Schedule to Transactions of Enterprise Banks, such as petition, certificate of results of electronic financial transfer, and inquiry into the agricultural bank account principal;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under the Criminal Act lies in the following: (a) the Defendant promised to receive the consideration and caused damage by using the access media for the commission of the phishing crime; and (b) the circumstance in which the damage to the phishing victim was recovered does not appear; and (c) other extenuating circumstances, such as the Defendant’s previous offense relation, motive for the crime,