2009Do3681 A. Fraud by using computers, etc.

(b) Larceny;

- - Private signature forgery;

(d) Exercising the above investigation signature;

(e) A violation of the Road Traffic Act;

(f) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

G. Violation of the Road Traffic Act

(h) Embezzlements of stolen objects;

A person shall be appointed.

Residential Pool City

(Confinement in Prisons)

Jeonnam of the original domicile

Defendant

Attorney Jin (Korean National Assembly)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2009No339 Decided April 15, 2009

July 9, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The act of acquiring cash from an automatic cash withdrawal machine using a stolen card constitutes larceny by removing control against the will of the manager of the automatic cash withdrawal machine and transferring the cash under his/her own control. Here, the victim is the manager of the automatic cash withdrawal machine (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do997, Jul. 28, 1995). Furthermore, the electronic money transfer between financial institutions, such as computer, etc., through an information processing unit, is a transaction method realizing payment and receipt of funds between financial institutions or between customers using the information processing unit such as computer, and thus, it cannot be applied to the said bank’s account transfer under the premise that it cannot be applied to the said bank’s account transfer by means of the aforementioned risk of cash transfer to another financial institution. The victim is still liable for the return of deposits from the account holder’s account in the name of another financial institution, i.e., the account transfer-related financial institution’s account at risk of cash transfer. Therefore, the victim is still liable for the return of deposits from the account holder’s account in the name of another financial institution.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's punishment should be exempted on the ground that in the case of the crime of larceny and the crime of use fraud, such as computer, etc., the victim's mother, Kim as he is the mother of the defendant, in cash or transferred money from the O bank account under the name of the defendant Kim Kim, the defendant's mother, and the crime of use fraud, such as computer, etc., the defendant's mother is exempted from punishment. The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of larceny and fraud by use of computer, etc

In addition, in this case where the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn