logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2020.09.10 2020고정103
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

On February 18, 2019, the Defendant promised to receive a loan from a person who is unable to know the most name of the lending business operator in front of the C Hospital located in Pyeongtaek-si B on the condition of “loan 20 million won and 24% interest per annum”, and then the lending business operator took place only with a physical card in the name of the Defendant, and sent a physical card card connected to the Nong Bank account (Account Number D) in the name of the Defendant, using Kwikset, and around that time, notified a person whose name cannot be known by telephone communications of the password number to use the above account.

Accordingly, the Defendant transferred an electronic card, which is a means of access, and a password necessary to use the above account, to another person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol concerning F of the defendant's statement in court to the police interrogation protocol, and statutes on the seizure list;

1. Relevant Article 49 (4) 1 and Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning criminal facts, and selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act appears to have been used by a third party by the means of access that a defendant transferred for criminal purposes. However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the law, the defendant's statement that he/she would have harmed a loan from a person who assumes the person who assumes the person who assumes the person who assumes the loan, and that the means of access is deemed to have been transferred by trust, the defendant would have taken into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and determine the punishment as ordered.

arrow