logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.29 2016고단7849
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, no person shall transfer or take over any access medium, or lend or take over any access medium in return for promising to receive any consideration.

Nevertheless, on October 24, 2016, the Defendant received letters from the person without his/her name and lent a medium of access to the account to acquire cash, and on October 26, 2016, the Defendant promised to receive KRW 3 million per access medium from the officer of Kwikset Service who sent the above name in front of the non-indicted church located in the Bupyeong-dong Incheon Metropolitan City, to receive KRW 3 million per access medium to the officer of Kwikset Service, and sent the physical card of the Saemaul Treasury Account (B) opened in the name of the Defendant, and notified the password to the telephone.

As a result, the Defendant promised to pay for the access media used in electronic financial transactions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the release of deposits;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions for the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. The crime of lending an access medium under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act for the reason of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention of the workhouses is a means to facilitate other crimes against many unspecified persons, such as Bosing, and considering the fact that the cream card offered by the Defendant was actually used for the cryping crime, that the Defendant expected a considerable benefit and lent his cryp card, that the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have any substantial benefit from the Defendant’s criminal act.

arrow