전자금융거래법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that as long as the defendant opens and holds a passbook as a proxy of corporation B, the defendant has the right to dispose of the above passbook and the check card, the defendant transfers the above passbook, etc.
2. Determination
A. Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits the act of “transfer” or “acquisition” in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the same Act. In addition, Article 49(4)10 of the same Act separately regulates the quantity of prohibited acts that may undermine the safety and reliability of transaction with respect to the means of access as set forth in subparagraph 10.
Therefore, in light of the purport and form of the above law, and the interpretation of penal provisions should be strict, and excessively expanded or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the express provisions to the disadvantage of the defendant is not permitted under the principle of no punishment without law, it is reasonable to deem that the "transfer of access media" prohibited by the above law refers to the transfer of the right to own or dispose of the means of access in a fixed manner. Therefore, it does not constitute the mere transfer of the means of access without holding ownership or right to dispose of the means of access.
B. Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, who was aware of his personal information while inquiring about 20 to 30 lending companies, or asked him about the loan by receiving a person's telephone on any day; ② The representative of the corporation Eul may import goods from the passbook that he would deposit money in the name of the above corporation if he opened a deposit passbook in the name of the above corporation, and proposed the defendant to be employed by the delivery company.