logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019고단3190
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Reasons

Criminal facts

In using and managing a means of access, no one shall lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation therefor.

Nevertheless, around June 15, 2019, the Defendant accepted a proposal from a nameless person who assumes a false representation in B Bank C to the effect that “When sending a physical card, the Defendant will have a loan executed after raising credit rating by making a false transaction performance.” On or around the 18th of the same month, the Defendant sent one physical card, which is a means of access connected to the D Association (E) account in the name of the Defendant, via Kwikset Service, and notified the password of the above account by telephone.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a means of access with the promise to receive an intangible expected profit to implement the loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and Articles 6(3)2 and 6(3)2 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively considered to determine the sentence as ordered.

The favorable circumstances: The fact that the defendant recognized and reflected the crime; the same kind of crime does not exist; the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant's assertion that the means of access leased by the defendant was actually used for the crime of Bophishing, and there is no data to regard that the damage was completely recovered.

arrow