beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
On August 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a telephone from a person without his name to “to create a head of a Maspbook if sending a Maspbook”; and (b) delivered a Masp Card, which is an access medium connected to the Postal Account (F) in the name of the Defendant, to a person with no name.
Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the access media under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
Judgment
The “number of accessible media” as referred to in Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act refers to the acquisition of the right to own or dispose of the access media in a fixed manner based on the intention of the transferor, and merely does not include the act of lease, or of obtaining delegation for temporary use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14913, Feb. 9, 2012). According to the record, in light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment, he was aware that the Defendant was not a transfer of the access medium with the knowledge of being used in the crime.
However, the Defendant raised questions by the lending business entity on the basis of the need for a e-mail card to open a Maspbook, and the lending business entity sent the resident registration certificate and the business registration certificate by facsimile, thereby sending the Maspbook to believe that the lending business entity sent the Maspbook and receiving a return of the Maspbook after opening the Maspbook.
The above resident registration certificate and the business registration certificate were submitted, and the defendant did not appear to have received any consideration for sending a physical card, and the defendant sent a physical card, and the following day after the defendant sent the physical card, and requested the suspension of payment immediately by deeming that money not known to the account in the name of the defendant was deposited and withdrawn.
In light of the fact that the prosecutor's evidence alone, the defendant's ownership or right to dispose of the physical card is confirmed.