beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of facts (1) The Defendant’s promise to use the means of access to obtain a loan to a person who is not his/her name and does not lend the means of access.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. “Lending a means of access” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act means lending a means of access to a third party temporarily without managing or supervising the user of the means of access when receiving, demanding, or promising to receive, or promise to provide compensation, to allow the third party to use the means of access without managing or supervising the user of the means of access. “Price” refers to economic benefits in relation to the lending of
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, if the recipient of a means of access is objectively admitted even if there is an agreement on the subject, amount, interest rate, and method of receiving a loan, etc. with respect to the motive and circumstance leading up to the delivery of the means of access, relationship with the recipient, the number of the means of access to which the means of access was delivered, the behavior or circumstance after the delivery, and whether there was an agreement on the recipient, amount, and method of receiving the loan, etc., if it is deemed that the delivery of the means of access constitutes the transfer of the means of access as referred to in Article 6(3)1 of the Act, rather than the means for receiving the loan, and if it is deemed that the delivery of the means of access is not the means for receiving the loan, it constitutes the transfer of the means of access as referred to in Article 6(3)1 of the Act, and the intent on such transfer is also reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12789, May 24, 2012).
B. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s specific judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant’s request for the check card.