(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2019.05.09 2019고단288

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 안양지원 2019.05.09 2019고단288

전자금융거래법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall lend or borrow any means of electronic financial transactions issued by a financial institution in return for receiving, demanding or promising the price therefor.

Nevertheless, around December 14, 2017, the Defendant sent 3 million won loan from a person who has no personal name, with a promise, to inform the person who has no personal name of the password of the password by wire, and then sent 1 copy of the physical card that is linked with the new bank account (D) of the Defendant in the Gu, to the person who has no personal name.”

As a result, the Defendant promised to receive intangible expected gains from future loans and lent the means of access to a person who is not his/her name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. The written provision of financial transaction information (new bank-F, and A);

1. A copy of transfer transaction receipt;

1. Police seizure protocol [the defendant and his defense counsel did not lend the means of access in return for the loan, but the means of access was provided as the "means of interest payment". However, this Court held that the defendant had previously received the loan from the bank and had experience in this part at the time of the lawful adoption and investigation, i.e. the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., it was difficult for the defendant to borrow the loan from the bank at 7rd level, and there was no talk about the method of repayment of the loan and interest except for sending the above name and the above card at the time of the call, and thus there was no way to receive the loan in case of not sending the check card. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant did not allow the non-party to arbitrarily conduct electronic financial transactions using the means of access of the defendant in return for receiving the loan from the non-party name. The defendant and the defense counsel cannot accept

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2020.11.26 2020고단1208

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2019.09.27 2019고단34

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.02 2019고단3753

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.11.11 2020고단414

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.13 2020고정801