The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant was prohibited from transferring an access medium to electronic financial transactions, but the Defendant was issued a new bank D account in the name of the Defendant, the bank E account in the name of the Defendant, and the National Bank F account on November 1, 2017, respectively, and transferred the password to the non-exploiter with the password.

2. Determination

A. Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act provides a punishment for transferring or taking over an access medium in violation of Article 6(3)1 of the same Act. However, where an access medium, such as deposit passbooks, cash cards, and password, is delivered by stating that a loan will be carried out, if it is only to delegate the temporary use of the access medium, it does not constitute “transfer” of the access medium under Article 6(3)1 of the same Act.

However, the legislative purpose of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is to clarify the legal relationship of the electronic financial transaction and ensure the reliability of the transaction performance (Article 1), and considering the following factors: (a) objectively determine whether there was an agreement on the motive and circumstance leading up to the delivery of the access medium; (b) the relationship between the school and the other party after the school; (c) the behavior or circumstance leading up to the school; and (d) the subject, amount, interest rate, and the method of receiving loans with respect to loans that have become the motive for the school; and (e) whether there was an intention on the transfer of the access medium, if it can be deemed that the delivery of the access medium constitutes an access medium as referred to in Article 6(3)1 of the same Act and that there was an intention on the transfer of the access medium.

It should be viewed.

In this case, the delivery of the access media is merely a delegation of the temporary use of the access media.