logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2014.06.05 2013노648
전자금융거래법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal argues that the defendant sent a copy of the passbook, security card, and password from the name omitted person to a money by raising the transaction performance. However, it is not clear whether the defendant applied for the suspension of transaction in the above passbook account or how the amount of damage deposited in the Bosping account in the name of the defendant was handled. In light of the above, it is difficult to believe the defendant's argument, and the defendant did not confirm the personal information of the person who has failed to receive the name, the location of the office, and the specific time, place, method, etc. of returning the passbook, the defendant should be deemed to have renounced ownership in the account and transferred it to the person who has failed to obtain the name omitted.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. No person charged of the instant case may transfer the card and password, which is a means of access to electronic financial transactions, a user number registered with financial institutions, etc.

Nevertheless, on February 4, 2013, the Defendant opened a deposit account (Account Number:C) in his/her name at a point south of the State of the Nam-gu Incheon, Nam-gu 7, 1315-4, 1315-4, and sent a copy of the passbook, security card, and password (hereinafter “the instant means of access”) to the Internet banking connected to the above account number to the person who has failed to know the same day.

B. The judgment of the court below held that the defendant sent a copy of the passbook and a security card from his name in return for a loan from his name in order to raise the transaction performance and to return the means of access in this case with the loan.

arrow