logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.11 2020고정532
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In using and managing a means of access, no one shall engage in any act of lending any means of access while receiving, demanding or promising to receive compensation, unless otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, on October 30, 2019, the Defendant issued a proposal to the effect that, “Skwikset Service Co., Ltd.” used to send Kwikset Service Articles, the Defendant sent to Kwikset Service Articles the Defendant’s name-based “Skwikset Service Co., Ltd.”, which was connected to the subway No. 233 in the subway No. 233, Seo-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and then sent to Kwikset Service Articles the Defendant’s name-based “Skset Service Co., Ltd.”.

As a result, the Defendant promised to provide a means of access in return for an intangible expected profit to receive future loans, and lent it to a person who is named in bad faith.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Attachment: B bank reply data [the defendant's defense counsel merely stated that the defendant's credit inquiry was necessary to obtain a loan from his/her name and thus it is not a promise to receive a loan for an intangible expected interest. While promising to obtain a loan, the defendant lent a means of access to allow another person temporarily to use a means of access without managing and supervising the means of access and to conduct electronic financial transactions. It is probable to view that the defendant obtained an opportunity to obtain a loan in a situation where it is difficult to obtain a loan in a normal way has a relationship corresponding to the lending of the means of access, i.e., a quid pro quo relationship (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16946, Jun. 27, 2019). The evidence presented in the judgment is comprehensively taken into account.

arrow