(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.18 2018노927 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.18 2018노927

전자금융거래법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) is that the defendant listens to the expression that he would grant a loan by extending credit rating through false transaction records, and there is no specific agreement on the method of return of the check card under his name, and the defendant is aware of the personal information of the counter-party who has taken over the check card at all, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant transferred the access media as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the contrary.

2. Determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor’s ex officio determination of the facts charged of this case had been maintained as the primary facts charged, and applied in the first instance in accordance with Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, “Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 6(3)2 of the same Act,” and the facts charged below [the judgment used again] applied for amendment of an indictment containing the same contents as the facts charged, and the subject of the trial is changed by this court’s permission. As examined below, the court below’s judgment that only the primary facts charged cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The lower court: (a) stated in detail the grounds for determination on the prosecutor’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine; and (b) provided the Defendant with an intention to definitely transfer his/her right to own or dispose of access media to a person who is in

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

In light of the facts charged, the primary charges are charged.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.02.01 2017노97

-대구지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노2301

-대구지방법원 2021.02.03 2020노1914

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.23 2017노1504

-부산지방법원 2018.08.17 2017노4045