logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.08 2019고단1204
전자금융거래법위반
Text

[Defendant A] The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall keep, deliver or distribute a means of access while receiving or promising compensation.

1. On January 2019, Defendant A received a proposal from a person under whose name the “F” was used in the “F” or “E,” a smartphone-making display d,” and “E, with respect to the payment of allowances of KRW 30,000 to KRW 70,00 per case, if the Defendant was to deliver the card to a designated person, he/she would be paid an allowance of KRW 30,000 and KRW 70,000,000 per case.”

On February 22, 2019, at around 12:46, the Defendant, according to the direction of the “F,” the Defendant kept at the front of the “H” located in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, under the direction of the “F,” and transferred I the Nong Bank Nong Bank (the card number J).

2. On November 2018, Defendant B received proposals from “F” as stated in paragraph (1) from “F,” and responded thereto, Defendant B responded to the proposal that “I would pay 2% of the withdrawn amount if he/she was to withdraw money with the check and transfer money to the account designated by him/her while keeping the check in custody,” from the beginning of December 2018.

On February 21, 2019, according to the direction of the “F”, the Defendant received and kept a copy of the e-mail card (credit card number L) in the vicinity of the Seoul e-mail (hereinafter “F”), from a person who was unaware of his name, and thereafter kept the e-mail card (credit number L) from February 14, 2019, from that time by February 22, 2019.

3. The Defendant C indicated in the written indictment around January 28, 2019 as around January 28, 2018. However, according to the investigation records (Article 137, 139 through 147, 262, and 264), it appears that it is obvious that it is a clerical error and does not affect the Defendant’s right to defense, and thus, it is corrected without the amendment procedure.

The proposal mentioned in paragraph (1) from the F is made and in response thereto, the Cze Card is collected.

arrow