금융실명거래및비밀보장에관한법률위반방조
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is merely the explanation of the typical method of committing phishing fraud in the name of the person who was unable to obtain the statement of the facts charged in the instant case. As such, the evasion of the law stated in the facts charged refers to “the commission of phishing fraud by a person who was not in his name,” and this constitutes “an evasion of the law” under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.
In the case of this case, there has been a criminal act of phishing fraud, and the defendant has also been aware of the criminal act of phishing fraud by phishing person's name. The defendant's intention of aiding and abetting and the principal offender's intention is recognized.
Nevertheless, there was no intention of the principal offender and the defendant.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to aiding and abetting and misconceptioning facts, which affected the judgment.
Judgment
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant sought a temporary business operator who is an exporting company of cosmetics and who can reduce taxes from his/her name in an unwritten name.
A proposal to the effect that, instead of settlement of accounts, three percent of the amount of settlement of accounts of the Jeju Sea would be paid per day, it is recognized that: (a) the account number in the name of the defendant was known to the party in default; (b) the person in default of the name knew the account number in the name of the defendant to the account in the name of the defendant by deceiving the victim D; and (c) the defendant withdraws the money deposited in the said account under the direction of the person in default of the name of the defendant and delivered it to the cash collection book of the Bosing organization.
B. However, the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Kakao Stockholm conversation (which was divided by the Defendant’s non-existence of the aforementioned proposal from his name) and the Defendant was designated as a person subject to the restriction on withdrawal from N securities.