Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 2017, the Defendant violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and transferred a physical card connected to the post office account (number D) opened in the name of the Defendant at the Seocho-si, Namyang-si, Seoul, by delivering it to the needy person in Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

2. Around September 14, 2017, the Defendant embezzled: (a) as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1) on September 13:47, 2017; (b) withdrawn KRW 3.2 million out of the amount of KRW 4 million deposited by the Victim F for the Victim; and (c) embezzled it by personal use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A petition, public receipt, a statement of the details of transactions of an automatic cash withdrawal machine, a statement prepared by the police against F, each reply, the details of transactions, communications details, and a statement of transactions of entry and withdrawal;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, inquiry reports;

1. Article 49 (4) 1, Article 6 (3) 1, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning criminal facts; the selection of fines for negligence;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order (as to embezzlement) was determined (as to embezzlement) and that the defendant knew that the money deposited in the account in this case under the name of the defendant was a loan arranged by a non-party who acquired the e-mail card connected to the above account, and paid it as a credit card payment, and did not know that the victim was a money deposited in the e-mail. Thus, there was no criminal intent of embezzlement.

The following circumstances acknowledged by this Court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., (i) the Defendant would have the Defendant get loans from a person who was in early September 2017, in the event of sending a physical card connected to the financial account on a elective basis.”