(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.27 2019고단2815

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) 인천지방법원 2019.06.27 2019고단2815

전자금융거래법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall borrow or lend a means of access while demanding, demanding or promising compensation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant borrowed the means of access by delivering 2.4 million won to the bearer bank account in the name of the Defendant on January 24, 2019, after receiving a proposal from the non-known person to grant 3.4 million won after the use of the 3-day card on each page, and promising to lend the e-mail card in the name of the Defendant. On January 24, 2019, at around 14:00, the Defendant lent the means of access by sending the e-mail card connected to the DF bank account in the name of the Defendant and one e-mail card connected to the Defendant’s name of the FF bank account (G).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer with H (including attached documents);

1. I

1. Application of trade-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 49 (4) 2 and Article 6 (3) 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) 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 is that lending of the means of electronic financial transactions with the promise of compensation for the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) is in favor of the defendant, such as ensuring the security and reliability of electronic financial transactions and ensuring that the means of access can be abused for other crimes, such as singinginging fraud, and that the means of access is multiple means of lending, and that the victim of fraud was caused thereby, and that the means of access can have been predicted to be used for illegal purposes even if considering the fact that the means of access was used in light of the fact that the victim of the fraudulent crime was offered from the person who was not the name was not the victim, and that some of the amount of damage incurred after the suspension of the account transaction was returned to the victim through the refund procedure

The above circumstances are as follows.

참조조문

-전자금융거래법 제6조 제3항 제2호

-전자금융거래법 제49조 제4항 제2호

유사 판례

-대구지방법원김천지원 2020.10.21 2020고단675

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2019.08.16 2019고단577

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2019.07.12 2019고단366

-인천지방법원 2019.03.28 2019고단702

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2019.09.06 2019고단738