(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019고정1395

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) 부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019고정1395

전자금융거래법위반

Text

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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall borrow or lend a means of access, or keep, deliver or distribute a means of access, knowing that he/she is to be used for a crime or to be used in such crime.

On May 2019, the Defendant received a proposal that “I would make a loan if I would make the details of transactions into the main trading account by telephone from a person who assumes a false name who assumes the position of Bentman, and would create and lend a transaction performance if I would send a physical card.”

On November 2012, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that the account linked to the physical card was opened to the police that was used for the crime of Bophishing fraud and was used for the crime of Bophishing, and thus, (b) he was aware of the fact that the method of access, such as the physical card, was used for the crime of Bophishing, but he was aware of the fact that it was used in the criminal act of Bophishing, etc., by accepting the proposal from a person without his name, and (c) around May 14, 2019, through Kwikset Service article sent by the person without his name in front of Busan Dong-gu, Busan, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the physical card was used for the crime of Bophishing, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant knowingly lent the means of access to the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A certificate of remittance of the amount of damage and details of replies (A Account Information, etc.);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the method of access is not to be leased, even though they did not have a cream card to the effect that they would be used for the singishing fraud, in spite of the fact that they would be used for the singishing fraud.

In other words, the defendant was charged with violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of the means of access in around 2012 and investigated as follows.

참조조문

-전자금융거래법

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2019.10.15 2019고단332

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2020.01.14 2019고단495

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2020.12.22 2020고단465

-부산지방법원 2019.08.23 2019고단768 (3)

-부산지방법원 2020.01.29 2019고단6019