logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2019.09.25 2019고단769
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in any other Act, no one shall lend a means of access while promising to receive consideration in using and managing the means of access.

Nevertheless, on February 1, 2019, the Defendant accepted the phrase “B employee C” from a person who misrepresented “B employee C” at the Donsan-si Central Postal Office, and accepted the phrase “on the basis of the current customer’s records. If we send a e-mail card, she would have borrowed the card and return the card upon the completion of the loan,” and then delivered a e-mail card connected to the national bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant to receive the loan as above.

As a result, the Defendant promised to provide a means of access in return for an intangible expectation interest that can receive future loans, and lent it to a person who has not been named.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written complaints, details of remittance, investigation reports (report on suspect A E contents);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and Articles 49(4)2 and 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Selection of Fines) of the choice of punishment [to select fines in consideration of the following: (a) the act of lending means of access, etc. prohibited by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, such as lending, etc., can be abused for crimes, such as engaging in new service, evasion of taxes, and gambling, etc.; (b) the act of lending means of access has been committed as long as social abolition has been promised and the act of lending means of access has been committed; and (c) the actual occurrence of the victim of Bophishing is not easy to take into account the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding the Defendant’s serious reflectness

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow