Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 9, 2013, the Defendant opened a post office account under the name of the Defendant at the “Magju Mining Office” located in the Masan-dong in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, and transferred cash cards and passwords of the means of electronic financial transactions, from 103 Dong-dong 1405, Gwangju Mine-gu, to the name partner through Kwikset Service.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to response materials by financial institutions;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (the crime of transfer of access media is established only one crime for each means of access. However, the act of transfer of multiple means of access at once constitutes a single act where several crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act are committed, and each crime is in a mutually concurrent relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010).

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 reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected in the sentencing; (b) the Defendant is treated as a person with a disability of class 5 with a disability of class 5 with a disability; and (c) the Defendant is treated as a person with a disability of class 5 with a urinology, etc.; and (d) appears to be in an economically difficult place as a general recipient of the National Basic Living Security Act;

However, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is a crime that facilitates the so-called "phishing" fraud, which is becoming a social problem, and it cannot be said that the nature of the crime is not considerably good because the means of access illegally transferred by the defendant is actually used for the above fraud, such as generating a number of victims. It is equity with other similar cases.