beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
No person shall borrow or lend a means of access in receiving, demanding or promising any compensation.
Nevertheless, around May 28, 2019, the Defendant was urged to offer a work loan from a person who has not been named in the name of the Defendant, and agreed to lend and receive a loan to a person who has not been named in the name of the Defendant, with a check to the effect that “the information should be known through the physical card in the name of the Defendant.” On the 30th day of the same month, the Defendant sent the check card to the person who has not been named in the name of the Defendant through Kwikset Service.
As a result, the Defendant promised to receive compensation and lent the means of access.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 49 (4) 2 and 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning the selection of punishment;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The conduct of lending the means of access to electronic financial transactions on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is highly likely to cause secondary damage, such as fraud, by opening up the possibility of abusing the accounts linked to others for other crimes, and thus, such social harm and injury is high.
In fact, the means of access that the Defendant lent was used in telecommunications-based financial fraud, such as remittance and withdrawal of 6 million won to the connected account.
However, there are circumstances to consider that the number of means of access leased by the defendant is limited to one, and that the defendant lends a loan to the defendant by raising credit rating.
No profit earned by the defendant from the crime of this case is available.
Although the defendant was subject to a disposition twice against the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, he/she has no record of criminal punishment prior to this case.
In full view of the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as above.