logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.10 2020고정1480
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

No one shall transfer, acquire or lend a means of access, request for payment, or distribute or keep, deliver or distribute a means of access while giving or receiving a transaction request or using or managing a means of access, such as an electronic card and password, which is used to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and transaction details with respect to financial transactions, unless any other special provision exists.

Nevertheless, on March 9, 2020, the Defendant issued a physical card connected to the Defendant’s bank’s account (Account Number G), 1, 17:00 on March 13, 2020, to “E” in order to receive a loan after hearing the statement that “I will repeatedly create a transaction performance by sending a e-mail card with low credit rating, and repeatedly create a e-mail passbook in order to issue a e-mail passbook equivalent to KRW 50 million.” At the same place on March 14, 2020, the Defendant issued two copies of the e-mail card connected to the Defendant’s nameless bank’s account (Account Number G), and e-mail card connected to the Defendant’s (Account Number H) account at the same time as the Defendant’s name bank’s (Account Number H) account.

As a result, the Defendant promised to pay for the intangible expected interest of future loans through false deposit and withdrawal transactions, and lent the means of access to the name-in-fact party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. I’s authenticity and statement of transactions, each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant, claiming that there was no intention since the defendant mispercing the defendant as a procedure for lending. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the defendant stated in the investigation agency that B bank delivered the check card connected to the F bank account and the corporate bank account to the effect that B bank account was issued with a view to raising credit. However, it is regular.

arrow