beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2018노895

전자금융거래법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant believed that he would help a certain amount of money if there is no more than the Defendant’s card in the Defendant’s demand for the payment of his obligation, and was unaware that the Defendant’s card was used for licensing crimes as stated in the lower judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the economic situation of the defendant's wrongful sentencing is difficult, the sentence of the court below (the punishment amount to KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits “for the purpose of ensuring the credibility of the safety performance of electronic financial transactions by clarifying the legal relationship of the electronic financial transaction” (Article 1); “for the purpose of lending an access medium while receiving, demanding, or promising compensation” (Article 6(3)2); and for the purpose of punishing a person who lends an access medium in violation of Article 49(4)2 (Article 49(4)). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s message of the head of the passbook’s lending to the Defendant around May 29, 2017 at the police contact with the telephone, and the telephone employee would provide KRW 3 million per month if he/she lends the check card to use in the sports territory.

of the court below's holding that the card was transferred.

The statement, ② that the Defendant lent his body card, and the leased party appears to have committed the fraud by using the above card, ③ that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the check card he lent was used for the crime.

However, the crime of this case is established when the defendant receives the price and lends the e-mail card, and whether the defendant knew that the e-mail card was used for the e-mailing crime of this case is not related to the establishment of the crime of this case, in full view of the facts that the defendant was not related to the establishment of the crime of this case.