beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. "Price" under Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act means clear economic benefits with a specific entity that can directly recognize a causal relationship with the means of access.
However, the Defendant offered a proposal that he would offer the price of KRW 2,40,000 per head of the physical card if he/she lends the physical card from a person without personal identity. However, since he/she proposed to the person with no personal name to cooperate with the public trade that the Defendant intends to promote instead of paying money and accepted it by the person with no personal name and lent the means of access, it cannot be deemed that he/she lent the means of access in return for payment.
B. Judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing: 5 million won
2. The Electronic Financial Transaction Act was enacted to clarify the legal relationship of the electronic financial transaction to ensure the safety and reliability of the electronic financial transaction (Article 1). “The act of lending the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising the payment” (Article 6(3)2), and the person who lends the means of access is punished in violation of Article 6(3)2.
(Article 49(4)2) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the act of lending a means of access to a third party temporarily in receiving, demanding or promising to receive, demand or promise any compensation so that the third party can use the means of access without managing and supervising the user of the means of access; and “price” refers to economic benefits in relation to the lending of the means of access.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946 Decided June 27, 2019). Even in accordance with the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant proposed that the Defendant would give KRW 2.4 million per head of the e-mail card to the person under whose name the Defendant proposed to give 2.4 million per head of the e-mail card. In fact, the Defendant proposed that the instant funeral-related business was defective on the ground where the Defendant thought.