Court: "Card kept with promise of payment and simultaneous intent to use for crime"
[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a person merely receives someone else's check card to withdraw crime proceeds, knowing it is illicit, they should be punished.
The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) overturned the lower court's acquittal in the appeal trial of Mr. A (33), who was charged with violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court, the court announced on the 27th.
In September 2020, Mr. A was prosecuted on charges of receiving and holding two check cards belonging to others via a quick service, after promising compensation from Mr. B. The police, having received a tip about the crime, prepared the check cards and sent them via quick service, then waited to arrest Mr. A upon receipt of the cards.
The trial focused on whether Mr. A's actions constituted the crime of "possession of access media (cards)" under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. The Act stipulates punishment for "acts of lending or borrowing access media while receiving, demanding, or promising compensation, as well as acts of possession, delivery, or distribution," and "acts of lending or borrowing access media for the purpose of crime or knowing it will be used for crime, as well as acts of possession, delivery, or distribution."
The first trial court found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to eight months in prison, but the second trial court acquitted him of possession charges, reasoning that the check cards used in the case were prepared in advance by the police for a sting operation and were not access media that could be directly used in a crime or substantially contribute to the commission of a crime.
However, the Supreme Court held that if a person promises to receive compensation for illegally using another person's financial account and possesses access media for that illegal use, it can be considered that they have promised economic benefits corresponding to the possession of the access media.
The court stated, "It is reasonable to view that the access media was possessed for the purpose of crime at the same time as promising to receive compensation, and it cannot be said that there is no 'compensation relationship' or 'purpose of criminal use' simply because the fee the defendant was to receive was not a direct compensation for the possession act or because the crime using the check card could not realistically materialize."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
