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

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

around July 2019, the Defendant received a proposal from B to “to open an account by establishing a juristic person and give KRW 6 million per week,” which was known to the Defendant in the course of engaging in the activities of the club with a motor vehicle, and intended to establish a term “ageing company” under the name of a juristic person without any substance, to open the account under the name of the juristic person, and to lend the means of access connected thereto. Accordingly, the Defendant, as the Defendant did, did so through a certified judicial scrivener, etc., intended to register the establishment of the company through a certified judicial scrivener, etc., and, after opening the account under the name of the said juristic person, intended to deliver cash cards, password

1. In the business of opening an account in the name of a corporation at a bank interfering with business affairs, where the relevant account is used for a financial crime, the bank is liable to compensate for damages depending on negligence. Thus, whether the relevant corporation is a normal corporation or not is an important confirmation matter of the bank, and according to the comprehensive measures for eradicating the bank's large passbook implemented from October 2012, banks refuse to open the account where the purpose is unclear after explaining the illegality of the transfer of passbook to the account opened to the account opened and demanding the confirmation document from the customer.

Nevertheless, around November 12, 2019, the Defendant visited the victim D's enclosed branch located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, and in fact, did not intend to open the above old company's name account and transfer the means of access connected thereto to B. However, as if opening the normally operated company E's business purpose, the Defendant’s employees in charge of opening the account such as preparing a written confirmation of purpose of financial transaction, etc. were false and obstructed the opening of the victim D's account by fraudulent means from that time to December 17, 2019, and opened the corporate name account at least four times in total as described in the attached list of crimes.