Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and Defendant C shall be punished by fine of two thousand won.

(b).

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. Where an account is opened in a bank interfering with business affairs in the name of a corporation, the bank can be liable for damages under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act depending on whether the account is negligent, and as such, additional duties such as suspension of payment of the account and registration of the account for criminal use should be carried out, such as whether the relevant corporation is a normal corporation, whether the relevant account is used for normal financial transaction purposes, etc. are important confirmations in the bank’s opening of the account.

Defendant

A around October 15, 2013, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si visited the location of the Industrial Bank of Korea 19-8, 473, the 19-8 level, and applied for the opening of a bank account under the name of the limited company E.

However, in fact, the limited liability company E was a so-called corporation established formally for the purpose of creating a telecommunication passbook and a telephone, and even if the defendant had opened an account under the name of the above corporation, it was thought that he would transfer the account to another person to use it for a crime. However, as if the defendant had used it for a normal financial transaction purpose with respect to the operation of the company in normal course while operating the above company, he was carrying out as if he had used it for a normal financial transaction purpose, and issued the documents for application for the account, such as the business registration certificate, and the "the access medium is not transferable to another person" specified in the transaction application form. In this case

“The employee applied for the opening of an account with the signature of confirmation in the explanatory column to the purport that “” and received access media, such as the passbook, e-mail card, and OTP, from the said account after having the employee in charge open the account.

After all, Defendant A, as a deceptive scheme, has opened a new account in the name of Limited Company E and obstructed the Victim’s opening of the account, as well as obstructed the Victim’s opening of the account through seven times from around that time to September 1, 2014.