(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.25 2019고단105

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.25 2019고단105

전자금융거래법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall, with respect to the use and management of a means of access, borrow or lend a means of access or store, deliver or distribute a means of access with the knowledge that such means are to be used for a crime or to be used for a crime.

The Defendant was aware that the Defendant sent a physical card, a means of access, to a nameless person who “to lend a loan by raising credit rating by accumulating transaction performance on the face of sending a physical card,” and that the account linked to the card was investigated as a case used for committing the crime of Bosing fraud and received a disposition of suspension of indictment on or around February 2014 on the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and that the relevant means of access would be used for the crime of Bosing fraud if it was delivered to another person.

Nevertheless, at the end of November 2017, the Defendant listened to the phrase “B” from a person under whose name the Defendant misrepresented “B” employee, and sent a e-mail card, which is the means of access in the name of the Defendant at the Defendant’s home located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Swikkset Service, to put the e-mail card, one of the means of access in the name of the Defendant, and then sent the number and password to the person under whose name the number and password were known. On the following day, around 30th of the same month, the Defendant sent the e-mail card, account number and password, which are the means of access in the D (G) account, to the Defendant’s workplace located in Ansan-si, in the same manner as before the Defendant’s workplace located in Ansan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant knowingly delivered a means of access to a name-free person with knowledge that it will be used in crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A H statement;

1. A statement on transactions of the authenticity and automation machinery;

1. Data on reply to warrants;

1. Investigation report (a report on confirmation of the same kind of power);

1. The Defendant asserts that he did not know whether the means of access sent by himself would be used for licensing.

However, each judgment.

참조조문

-전자금융거래법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.01.25 2018고단6763

-수원지방법원 2019.03.28 2018고단6102

-수원지방법원 2019.02.12 2018고단6792

-수원지방법원 2019.04.26 2018고정1775