logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노2298
전자금융거래법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant only issued a check to automatically transfer the loan examination and the repayment of the loan by deceiving the loaner by deceiving the name and the Buddhist person, and does not lend the check to use the check for the benefit of the name and the Buddhist person.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Around June 8, 2016, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant promised to borrow KRW 3 million from the Defendant’s home located in Ischeon-si B; and (b) promised to use Kwikset’s personal card connected to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant, which is a medium access to electronic financial transactions, to send it to the name in distress.

Accordingly, the defendant promised to receive compensation and lent the electronic financial transaction access media.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined: (a) based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, ① the Defendant received a loan from the person F’s G team leader at around June 2016, and (b) the Defendant would undergo an examination; (c) would create a transaction record of deposit and withdrawal; and (d) would enhance credit limit; and (e) would also require an account for which the loan can be automatically processed; and (e) the Defendant would have to send a physical card as indicated in the facts charged; (b) the Defendant received a physical card from the person who was the team leader at the time, at the time, by any means; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the physical card was returned only when the loan procedure was completed; and (c) the Defendant could not be aware of the details of deposit and withdrawal from one’s account as indicated in the facts charged through the Internet banking on the day following the day when the bank was sent with the physical card.

arrow