전자금융거래법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant of "2017 High 478" was proposed to purchase 100,000 won per account by a Buddhist person who became aware of on the Internet.
On April 23, 2016, Kwikset service article sent to the article of this case on the street in front of the Southern-gu Busan metropolitan market on April 23, 2016, 100 won per account and 200,000 won in total by transferring two accounts at the same place on the same day.
was transferred in such a way as to receive it.
Except as otherwise expressly provided for in any other Act, no person of the 2017 High 494 shall borrow or lend any approaching medium, or store, deliver or distribute any approaching medium, with a view to using or managing the approaching medium.
Nevertheless, on April 23, 2016, the Defendant received a proposal that “one hundred thousand won per account for the loan of the head of the Tong” from a person in the name of the deceased on April 23, 2016, and accepted it, and then delivered one cash card linked to the head of the company bank (Account Number: C) through the head of the company bank in the name of the Defendant and the account in the middle-dong market near the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City, and received KRW 100,000,000 from the above person in the name of the deceased.
As a result, the Defendant paid for the access media for electronic financial transactions.
Summary of Evidence
"2017 High 478"
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police against D;
1. A search and seizure inspection warrant and reply 2017 Gohap 494;
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;
1. Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting the crime;
1. Although Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act do not state the provisions of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act under the applicable law, a prosecutor committed a violation of several Electronic Financial Transactions Act by a single act.