A business owner who installed an automated teller machine (ATM) at their own establishment that allowed cash withdrawals with a KakaoBank check card and repeatedly withdrew cash to improperly collect fees has had a fine finalized.
The Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Ma Yong-ju) said on the 18th that it affirmed, on Jan. 29, fines of 4 million to 6 million won imposed by the lower court on three people, including a person surnamed Park, who were indicted on charges including fraud and obstruction of business.
KakaoBank began operating as an internet bank in July 2017. KakaoBank signed a contract with Company A, which operates ATM machines, agreeing to pay a fee of 1,020 won per withdrawal when KakaoBank customers withdraw deposits from Company A's ATMs, and 850 won per transaction for account transfers. KakaoBank waived cash withdrawal and account transfer fees for its customers.
Park and the others were operators who ran massage parlors and massage businesses in Seoul's Gwanak District, Seoul's Seocho District, and Goyang, Gyeonggi Province. From 2014 to 2017, each installed Company A's ATM machine at their own establishment. They had an arrangement with Company A to receive a 400-won fee per transaction when users conducted bank transactions such as withdrawing deposits at the ATM.
Park and the others exploited this structure. If they withdrew their own deposits held in a KakaoBank account from the ATM installed at their establishment, a fee income of 400 won per withdrawal would come in.
In May to June 2018, Park and the others made 8,000 to 10,000 cash withdrawals for the purpose of earning fee income. They repeatedly withdrew 10,000 won from as few as about 50 times to as many as about 600 times a day. KakaoBank paid Company A a fee of 10.33 million won under the contract. Park and the others settled a portion of that amount.
The issue at trial was whether Park and the others could be punished for fraud when their conduct did not target a person. Under the Criminal Act, fraud is "an act of deceiving a person to receive delivery of property or to obtain an economic benefit."
The Supreme Court held that "even if acts such as inputting information into a computer or other information-processing device are not directed at a person who makes a property disposition, if those acts cause a person who makes a property disposition through the result of information processing to fall into error, they constitute deceptive acts against a person."
Applying this legal principle, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's ruling that found Park and the others guilty and imposed fines.