A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 2019, the Defendant received a proposal from a name-free person who became aware of through the Internet high-profit Abapt site, etc. to the effect that “after establishing an account in the name of the juristic person, opening the account in the name of the juristic person, opening the account, cash card, etc., and establishing a false juristic person in order to obtain a loan, and opened a financial account in the name of the juristic person, and read the means of access connected to the account to the account to the name-free person.

1. Where an account in the name of a juristic person is opened at a bank interfering with business affairs, the bank is liable for damages depending on whether the relevant account is a normal juristic person, whether the purpose of opening the relevant account is not transfer, and whether the purpose of opening the relevant account is to be actually used, etc. In accordance with the Financial Supervisory Service’s comprehensive measures for eliminating the passbook, which was in force from November 201, 2012, the bank explains to the customer the illegality of the transfer of passbook ( Card) and requests the customer to confirm and sign it, and refuses to open the account where the purpose of opening the account is unclear.

Nevertheless, around June 11, 2019, the Defendant filed an application for opening a bank account in the name of the said corporation when submitting documents necessary for opening an account, such as the company registration certificate, the certified transcript of corporate register, etc., under the pretending that the victim bank E branch near the subway station B located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is a company normally operated by the “F” to employees under the name of the said corporation, and even if it was thought that the means of access, such as passbook and cash card, connected with the above opened account, was able to see it to another person, the Defendant’s account is for business purposes.