대포통장 명의인의 보이스피싱 피해금 인출‧사용행위와 그 죄책 = The act of withdrawal & use of amount of loss deriving from voice phishing by a account holder of borrowed-name bankbook, and its liability for crime

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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Second, the money withdrawn by the account holder is a stolen property, but it is only the result of the account holder's requesting return of deposit.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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김성돈, "형법총론 제4판" 성균관대학교 출판부 2015

2 권오걸, "형법총론" 형설출판사 2009

3 오영근, "형법총론" 박영사 2012

4 임웅, "형법총론" 법문사 2016

5 김일수, "형법총론" 박영사 2006

6 박상기, "형법강의" 법문사 2010

7 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)" 박영사 2008

8 이재상, "형법각론 제10판 보정판" 박영사 2017

9 임웅, "형법각론" 법문사 2016

10 배종대, "형법각론" 홍문사 2013

11 김성돈, "형법각론" 성균관대학교 출판부 2015

12 박동률, "판례중심 형법각론" 경북대학교 출판부 2015

13 고제성, "통신사기피해환급법 제15조의2 제1항에서 말하는 ‘정보 또는 명령의 입력행위’의 의미" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 369-394, 2016

14 김창모, "착오로 수취인을 잘못 지정하여 계좌이체가 이루어진 경우 예금채권이 성립하는지 여부" 민사판례연구회 (31) : 449-483, 2009

15 송진경, "착오로 송금된 금전을 임의로 소비한 경우와 재산범죄" 한국형사법학회 23 (23): 385-406, 2011

16 김정환, "정범행위에 대한 방조자의 고의" 한국형사법학회 19 (19): 145-160, 2007

17 황정익, "전화금융사기사건에 있어서 명의도용 예금통장에 관한 법적 고찰" 한국공안행정학회 17 (17): 441-476, 2008

18 김성규, "전기통신금융사기의 현상과 그 가벌성" 법학연구소 32 (32): 339-366, 2012

19 전윤경, "일명 ‘보이스피싱’ 범죄에 가담한 대포통장 양도인의 방조범의 인정여부 - 대법원 2008. 6. 26. 선고 2008도1239 판결 -" 대검찰청 (52) : 80-116, 2016

20 임상규, "은행거래금전의 재물성과 장물성에 관한 異意" 한국비교형사법학회 13 (13): 49-72, 2011

21 고영태, "원인관계 없이 이루어진 지급이체의 법률관계" 부산판례연구회 21 : 2010

22 박동률, "예금, 차명예금, 계좌송금, 계좌이체와 관련된 형법상의 문제점" 법학연구원 (28) : 441-477, 2008

23 권오걸, "스마트 형법각론" 형설출판사 2011

24 김상중, "송금인의 수취인 착오로 이루어진 계좌이체에 따른 반환관계" 법학연구원 (55) : 231-265, 2009

25 박상복, "속칭 ‘대포통장’ 명의인의 예금인술에 대한 죄책" 수원지방변호사회 (18) : 2011

26 권기대, "소위 대포통장의 형사적 문제" (118) : 2007

27 최정학, "사기죄에서 ‘신의칙’의 의미" 한국형사법학회 24 (24): 177-199, 2012

28 김민상, "보이스피싱으로 입금된 돈을 대포통장 명의인이 임의로 인출한 경우 횡령죄 성립 여부," (23) : 2016

29 정완, "보이스피싱 대응체제의 문제점과 대책" 수사연구사 (298) : 2008

30 강윤구, "방조범의 성립요건으로서 고의의 의미 및 판단방법" (56) : 2005

31 김혜경, "방조범의 성립범위" 한국형사판례연구회 17 : 64-93, 2009

32 허일태, "결제능력없이 신용카드로 현금자동지급기에서 현금인출행위" Ⅰ : 1997