A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 18, 2016, the Defendant violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act: (a) sent the physical check to the account (C) in the name in the name of the Defendant to a place in which Kwikset’s service cannot be used to find out the names in front of the East Ireland, 100-3, Chungcheongnam-do, 100-3; (b) around that time, the Defendant sent the physical check to the name in the name in the phone, and (c) notified the name in the phone of the password.

Accordingly, the defendant transferred the access media to the defendant.

2. On August 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) knew that the Defendant was aware that the victim D had remitted KRW 6,300,000 to the said Daegu Bank Account by deceiving the said person’s name in writing; (b) had withdrawn KRW 1,00,000 from the said account on the same day by using the check card additionally issued immediately before the transfer of the check; and (c) had arbitrarily consumed KRW 2,496,220 on 14 occasions in total by August 22, 2016, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from that time, from August 22, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to certificates of details by member transaction account, new data, details of replies by financial institutions, and details of replies by home shopping companies;

1. Relevant Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime (the point of embezzlement), Article 49(4)1, and Article 6(3)1 (the point of transfer of access media) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act for the crime, and the choice of each imprisonment for the crime;

1. The circumstances agreed with the victim D for sentencing of Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (1) of the Act on the Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes are as follows.

However, on April 21, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (hereinafter “Electronic Financial Transactions Act”) and was committed the instant crime without being able to do so during the suspended sentence.

Since it is clear that the Defendant had already been subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and sufficiently perceived the illegality and the harm of the transfer of an access medium, the instant crime is highly intentional.