beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the reasons for appeal, the defendant, at least with dolusent intention, is sufficiently recognized that he/she has lent the instant check card to another person while knowing that it will be used for crime.
2. Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged was acquitted, on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant would have known that the instant physical card would be used for the crime when it was delivered to another person.
Article 6(3) main text of Article 6(3) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which is the law of the application of this case, shall closely examine the reasons for innocence of the lower judgment and the evidence of this case, and no person shall conduct any of the following acts in using and managing access media unless otherwise provided for in other Acts:
1. Transferring or taking over any access medium;
2. Lending or lending any approaching medium, or storing, delivering or distributing any approaching medium, requiring or promising to receive compensation;
3. The act of lending or lending, keeping, delivering or distributing access media with the intent to use it for a crime or knowing that it is to be used for a crime, and the act of transferring access media as provided by subparagraph 1 of the same Article or lending access media with the number of consideration as provided by subparagraph 2 is punished as a free access medium, unlike the act of lending access media with the number of consideration as provided by subparagraph 1 of the same Article, and the act of lending free access media with the requirement of " knowing that it is to be used for a crime or to be used for a crime." In addition, it is reasonable to strictly interpret such requirement, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that it is not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the determination of evidence as above, and there is
It does not appear.
Therefore, it is true.