logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.24 2019고단2690
업무방해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Judgment of the court below] On March 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from a person who assumes a false name as a loaner to the effect that “on the face of the transfer of the means of access, the Defendant would create a transaction document for 3 to 6 months on the basis of the transaction details; and (b) opened an account in the name of a “ageing company” without a substantive substance; and (c) had the means of access connected thereto lent to the above person.

【Criminal Facts】

1. In the business of opening an account under the name of a corporation at a bank interference with business, the bank must be liable for damages depending on whether the relevant account is negligent when it is used for a financial crime, etc. Therefore, whether the relevant corporation is a normal corporation or not is an important matter of confirmation by the bank. In accordance with the comprehensive measures for eradicating the bank passbook in force since October 2012 in order to eradicate the bank passbook, banks are refusing to open the account where the purpose of the bank is unclear after explaining to the customer the illegality of the transfer of the passbook and demanding the customer to confirm the purpose of the financial transaction.

Nevertheless, on March 12, 2018, the Defendant visited the Guro-gu Seoul Digital Central Branch of the Victim Enterprise Bank’s Guro-gu digital branch. In fact, the Defendant opened a corporate name account and thought to lend the means of access connected thereto to the above party. However, as if the Defendant opened an account to be used for the business purpose of the said “stock company B”, the Defendant pretended to open the account to the employee in charge of opening the account, who is in charge of the business of opening the account, along with the documents, such as the business registration certificate, etc., along with the documents, such as the transaction registration certificate, etc., to verify whether he/she received a request for a loan of the passbook for the purpose of lending from another person, and opened three business bank accounts in the name of “B”.

arrow