beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The court below acknowledged that (1) the Defendant transferred a passbook and a check in the name of the Defendant to a person who was not identified for the purpose of obtaining a loan and notified him of the password, but (2) the Defendant did not confirm the identity of the person who was to receive the loan, or the company to which he belongs, and did not specify the specific time or method to receive the above passbook and the card, and (2) the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits the transfer, takeover, and lending of the means of access for the purpose of securing stability and reliability of electronic financial transactions, and it is widely known that the act of using the means of access, such as the instant telephone financial fraud, can be used for such crime where the means of access is transferred or delivered to a third party because the crimes under the Act, such as the instant telephone financial fraud, occur across the country, is widely known, and thus, the Defendant could have easily predicted that the above passbook and the card can be used for the crime of telephone financial fraud at the time of delivering the passbook and the card to the person whose identity was not verified.
2. However, according to the records, the defendant can be viewed as the victim who transferred the passbook and the card for the purpose of obtaining a loan by deceiving the end of the person who was not the name of the person who was not the victim, and the defendant received any consideration in relation thereto.
There is no data that permits the use of the above passbook and card for the defendant beyond the purpose of lending for the defendant.
Therefore, in this case, the defendant who obtained the passbook and the card in this case recognized the proximate causal relation with the telephone financial fraud crime of this case and negligence.