메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
박동률 (경북대학교)
저널정보
경북대학교 IT와 법 연구소 IT와 법연구 IT와 법연구 제15호
발행연도
2017.1
수록면
221 - 250 (30page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This paper examines the liability for crime of the account holder of a borrowed name bankbook used for voice phishing at each stage of making the borrowed-name bankbook, assignment of right, and withdrawing amount of loss. The conclusion is as follows. To begin with, this paper examined the account holder's act of making a borrowed name bankbook to sell it as a borrowed name bankbook. It is a legitimate exercise of rights to obtain a bankbook. Also, there is no obligation to notify the bank of the plan to sell it as a borrowed name bankbook. So this act does not constitute fraud for the bank. Next, the account holder's liability of crime for selling a borrowed name bankbook is as follows. First, the account holder has no obligation to notify the voice phishing criminal that "he plans to stop the transaction of the borrowed name bankbook and make a new bankbook and withdraw money." Therefore, the act of selling a borrowed name bankbook does not constitute a fraud for the voice phishing criminal. Second, the act of selling a borrowed name bankbook can be punished as accessory of fraud of the crime committed by a voice phishing criminal. However, there is a limit to the establishment of crimes of fraud in connection with the criminal intent of the aid. Third, the act of the account holder's selling a borrowed name bankbook is a violation of the electronic financial transactions act because it is a transfer of an access medium. Also, a voice phishing criminal's receiving amount of loss through a borrowed name bankbook is equivalent to accessory of violation of the financial real name law because it is a transaction using borrowed name bank account. Finally, the act of withdrawing and using the amount of loss by the account holder is not any offense under the criminal law. First, the account holder has exercised a legitimate deposit bond so it is not deception. It is also not the case that the bank made a disposition because of a mistake. Therefore, fraud for a bank can not be established. Second, the money withdrawn by the account holder is a stolen property, but it is only the result of the account holder's requesting return of deposit. And it does not mean that he has actually acquired the right to dispose of it by transferring occupation from the voice phishing criminal. Therefore, it is not applicable to the crime of acquisition of stolen property. Third, embezzlement can not be established because the keeping relationship of the withdrawn money between the account holder and the victim or the voice phishing criminal can not be acknowledged. Fourth, the account holder's act of withdrawing the money transferred to the borrowed name bankbook is obtained by exercising his rights as a deposit creditor. Therefore, it is not to be considered larceny, since it can not be seen as against the will of the bank.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0