logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.11.30 2018고단2377
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 5, 2017, at around 17:00, the Defendant: (a) provided that “The Defendant would pay KRW 3,300,000,000 to one account 3.3 million, and KRW 6,90,000 to two accounts from his name in the name of the Defendant’s name in the name of the Defendant’s name at the front of the C coffee shop, which is located in B of Changwon-si,” and (b) provided that “The Defendant would pay KRW 3,30,000,000 to one account, and KRW 6,90,000,000 to two accounts in the name of the Defendant.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement;

1. Details of deposit transactions and replys to a warrant of seizure;

1. Application of the Kakao Stockholm Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In a situation where the criminal procedure of the provisional payment order, which has caused serious harm to our society due to the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, continues to take place, lending without permission a medium of access used for electronic financial transactions to a person who is unable to identify the defendant for the purpose of obtaining illegal profits, is not a good crime.

Since the access media leased by the defendant was actually used as a means of the phishing crime, the result of the crime is not less than that of the crime.

Even by allowing the Defendant to use part of the amount of damage in the settlement of card payment, etc., the Defendant has also gained financial benefits equivalent to KRW 1.45 million.

However, the defendant reflects his fault in depth.

It seems that the Defendant also lent the access media that he lent to the Defendant, without being aware that the media would be used for serious crimes such as phishing.

arrow