logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.03.24 2020노1208
전자금융거래법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s lending of access media, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact, although the Defendant promised to make a “opportune” as “opportune” and allowed another person to conduct electronic financial transactions at will using access media.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant, in short of the following summary, provided a false statement that the Defendant misrepresented the lending company in a situation where money is urgently needed; (b) provided a false statement to the Defendant that “The Defendant would lend KRW 10 million to the Defendant at an interest rate of 3% per month; and (c) provided a false statement to the Defendant that “The Defendant sent a physical card for repayment of interest on the loan from the main company that sent the physical card to the Defendant, he shall be free from the principal and interest deposited by the Defendant using the said physical card.

“The Defendant agreed on the amount, interest rate, etc. of the loan with his name in arrears, and sent his identification card, resident registration card, and account transaction statement, etc. that he believed and needed to examine the loan to the end of his name in mind. The Defendant appears to have received the loan. ③ The Defendant’s intention appears to have sent the check to the lending company and allowed the lending company to withdraw the interest if the Defendant deposits the interest in connection with the check in the future. It seems that the lending company does not allow the lending company to arbitrarily use the check. ④ In the event the lending company delivers the check for the purpose of withdrawing the interest on the loan, it is difficult to view that the payment relation cannot be seen as an economic benefit corresponding to the delivery of the check. ⑤ The Defendant sent the check to the lending company and issued the check card only once.

arrow