logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.12.18 2020노728
전자금융거래법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant believed that “on the face of sending the e-mail card, would supplement the transaction performance and then offer a loan.” The Defendant sent the e-mail card under the name of the Defendant as stated in the facts charged in this case. As such, the Defendant’s act is to receive compensation under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and does not constitute lending the means of access.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of facts that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. “Lending a means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the act of lending a means of access so that any other person may temporarily use a means of access without managing and supervising the means of access while demanding, demanding or promising to provide compensation, and “price” refers to the economic benefit corresponding to the lending of the means of access.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946 Decided June 27, 2019). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Health Team, the lower court, and the trial court: (i) the Defendant was on duty at the time of the instant crime; and (ii) the Defendant appears to have no property; and (iii) the Defendant only received text messages from non-personally disabled persons that it is possible to open a bank Mabpbook; and (iv) provided a loan by telephone with contact contact numbers as indicated in the instant text messages; (iv) the Defendant sent a physical card connected to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant upon receipt of a proposal to send the B Bank Bab Card from non-personally disabled persons to obtain a loan; and (iv) the Defendant only told that he would return the physical card immediately upon the loan approval from a non-personally disabled person.

arrow