beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000 (No. 2,000).
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of Reasons for Appeal: Error of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the defendant only delivered a e-mail card to the "I" and a e-mail card to the person in charge of the loan process, and there was no promise to receive payment or a e-mail. After that, the defendant was aware of the deposit of the money in the passbook and immediately reported it to the police and minimizing damage by suspending payment of the account. Nevertheless, recognizing a quid pro quo relationship is in violation of the principle of no punishment without law as to the meaning of misunderstanding of facts or "price", and unfair sentencing.
2. Determination
A. (1) The relevant legal doctrine was enacted to clarify the legal relationship of electronic financial transactions to ensure the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions (Article 1). “The act of lending means of access while demanding, demanding or promising the payment” is prohibited (Article 6(3)2), and the person who lends means of access is punished in violation of Article 6(3)2.
(Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to an act of lending a means of access to a third party temporarily without managing and supervising the means of access while demanding, demanding, or promising to demand or promise compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8957, Aug. 18, 2017); and “price” refers to an economic benefit corresponding to the lending of the means of access.
(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on June 27, 2019 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). (2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) was required to provide loans; (b) in the situation where the Defendant was unable to obtain loans from the first financial right; (c) asked the Defendant of the phone call, from the recipient of the instant text messages related to the loans; and (d)