This case shall not be under the jurisdiction of the court.

1. No person who has the gist of the facts charged may transfer or acquire the means of access in using and managing the means of access;

Nevertheless, on July 2016, the Defendant received a proposal to the effect that “if he/she gives a physical card and informs the password, he/she will create and send a Maspbook.” The Defendant accepted it, and then notified the above person of the password of the bank account (B) in the name of the Defendant to the cell phone, and then sent one copy of the above Makwikset service article.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the means of access for electronic financial transactions.

2. Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the territorial jurisdiction is defined as the place of crime, the address, residence or present location of the defendant.

However, the facts charged in the instant case are stated as “unauthorized place” and the court cannot be deemed to have jurisdiction over the instant case based on the criminal place. According to the records, the Defendant’s address, residence or present location is recognized as not belonging to the jurisdiction of this court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant case has territorial jurisdiction in this court.

3. In conclusion, the instant public prosecution was instituted in violation of territorial jurisdiction. Since the Defendant submitted an application for a judgment of violation of territorial jurisdiction to the court on November 4, 2016, which was before the statement of the accused case, on November 4, 2016, it is so decided as per Disposition under Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Procedure