logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.16 2016고단5620
전자금융거래법위반등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

No. 1 (related to 2016 order 5659) of seized evidence from Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In using and managing access media (Defendant A), no person shall lend or lend any access medium, or store, deliver or distribute it with the knowledge that it is intended to use it for a crime or is to be used for a crime, unless otherwise expressly provided for in any other Act.

On July 2016, the Defendant would give KRW 100,000 per page 1,00 per the note that the Defendant delivered a physical check from “F,” the Defendant’s seat, operating the Bosing Call Center in China, to “F.”

“Before receiving a proposal and delivering it to “F,” the proposal would again provide 8% of the face-to-face withdrawals by withdrawing cash with a e-mail card and delivering it to “G”.

“A person who received a proposal and carried out the withdrawal in response thereto was aware of the fact that the said person’s withdrawal was the amount of damage to licensing.

On August 8, 2016, the Defendant received instructions from “F” and kept one copy of the Saemaeul Credit Card (I) in the name of H, while knowing that it will be used for licensing crimes in front of the exit exit six times in the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

The Bosishing organization, which is managed by Defendant 2016 Ma669 (Defendant 2), is an organization composed of inducements by deceiving many unspecified victims and inducing them to borrow money, solicitations that invite the account to receive money from damage, deliverys that deliver the e-mail card connected to the Maspo Account to the withdrawal book, withdrawals of money deposited in the Maspo Account, remittances of money deposited in the Maspo Account, and remittances of money from the above organization.

On July 3, 2016, the Defendant offered a proposal that he will give KRW 4-50,000 per unit if he/she delivered the goods, and in response thereto, he/she continued to deliver the goods even though he/she knew on July 19, 2016 that the Defendant’s delivery of the passbook is the delivery of the passbook.

arrow