logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.26 2020노24
전자금융거래법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not a means of access, regardless of electronic financial transactions, that provides a cream card for the purpose of confirmation of the agent, which does not constitute a means of access, nor was the opportunity to receive the cream card and the quid

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected each of the above arguments in detail.

In addition to the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, even if all circumstances alleged by the Defendant up to the trial.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(1) The Defendant, with a physical card under the name of the Defendant, provided a physical card after hearing the explanation that the Defendant would be used to obtain a capital confirmation from the Bank of the Philippines and increase the limit on financial transactions in the Philippines.

(Investigation Records 63,69 pages) The issuance of the Defendant’s physical card shall be deemed to be the act of lending the means of access so that the Defendant may use the means of access without the Defendant’s control and supervision, and shall not be deemed to be the purpose of identification, as alleged by the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant sent his/her name check to an individual “E” in compliance with the instructions of a person who has failed to obtain his/her name, and the documents, offices, contact details, the identity of the employees, etc. of the lending company.

arrow