logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.10 2019고정1715
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Some of the facts charged were revised to the extent that it does not undermine the defendant's right of defense.

In using and managing the means of access, no one may lend the means of access while receiving, demanding or promising any compensation, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts.

Nevertheless, on April 15, 2019, the Defendant promised to receive a loan of KRW 5 million through KRW 10 million from a person who was named as a member of B Bank staff of the first police officer, and “the delivery of the physical card necessary to verify credit” was demanded, and around April 15, 2019, the Defendant sent one physical card connected to the Defendant’s name C Bank account (D) from the Seoul 2-dong post office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, to the post office’s house from April 15, 2019, and notified the password.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a means of access in return for an intangible expected interest to receive future loans.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E statements;

1. Requests for warrants;

1. On-the-job receipt, etc.;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the inquiry and reply;

1. Relevant Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)2 of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 17297 of May 19, 202) concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines for each type of crime

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is true that the defendant sent a e-mail card and password to a person who has failed to use his/her name, but only lent it for the purpose of verifying credit rating, and it is difficult to view that he/she promised to use the e-mail card for any other purpose.

2. Relevant legal principles are to clarify the legal relationship of electronic financial transactions.

arrow