logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.10.08 2019고정1795
전자금융거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

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

Nevertheless, on February 11, 2019, the Defendant received a loan advertisement by telephone and received a consultation with Kakaox, and received the proposal that “A loan will be made up to KRW 10,000,000 to 10,000,000,000,000,000”. On the same day, the Defendant consented to the cash card connected to B (C) accounts under the name of the Defendant at the e-mail-Eup, Nam-gu, Namyang-gu, Namyang-si, and notified the card password.

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. Provision and return of financial transaction information;

1. Application of the Kakao Stockholm statutes

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. Summary of the assertion

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant thought that it was the process of receiving a normal loan in the second financial right, and that the second financial right does not make it impossible to obtain a loan in the second financial right, and does not constitute a “price commitment” under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

B. The Defendant did not allow a name-free person to conduct electronic financial transactions using the Defendant’s cash card, and did not lend the means of access.

(c).

arrow