The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized No. 1.

A. The Defendant knew that the Defendant was to sell the Internet open market through the above resident registration number, and that the Defendant knew that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact (as to the violation of the Resident Registration Act).

Therefore, although the defendant's act does not constitute "the unlawful use of another person's resident registration number" under Article 37 (10) of the Resident Registration Act, the judgment below which convicted him of this part of the facts charged is erroneous due to mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The prosecutor to change the indictment in the trial of the case applied for changes in the indictment as stated in the facts constituting a crime under the Trademark Act (Article 1-A, Paragraph (b) as stated in the judgment of the court below), among the facts charged in the instant case, and the facts charged in violation of the Trademark Act (Article 1-A, Paragraph (b) as stated in the judgment of the court below). This court permitted changes in the subject of the judgment, and this part and the remaining facts charged should be sentenced to a single sentence if it is found guilty in the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37

B. Determination as to the violation of the Resident Registration Act on L/W’s Registration Act 1) Although the summary of this part of the facts charged is not unlawfully used, the Defendant unlawfully used the other’s resident registration number by joining the Internet Open Market including L/W’s resident registration number at 11 times in the course of acquiring L/W’s account and by joining the Internet Open Market, including but not limited to 11 times in the course of acquiring L/W’s account.

2) The lower court determined that this part of the facts charged was recognized in light of macroscopic evidence.

3) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court to determine the party’s deliberation, i.e., the website as “11 times” and “BA”, which the Defendant had used.