beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.11.13 2020노502

금융실명거래및비밀보장에관한법률위반방조

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The so-called “work loan”, which creates and lends a false transaction record of the gist of the grounds for appeal, is to obtain a loan by deceiving a financial institution by raising the credit rating of an individual by putting down the transaction record and raising the credit rating of the individual. The illegality of the loan is serious and social criticism is high. The act of making a financial transaction under the real name of an individual for a work loan constitutes an unlawful act under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter “Act on Real Name Financial Transactions”) and other evasion of law, and the defendant provided an account under his/her own name for this purpose. Thus, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant assisted and abetted a financial transaction under the real name of another

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles in finding a not guilty guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was aware of the intent and purpose of the principal offender, solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, that the purpose of the Defendant’s work loan constitutes “other evasion of law” under Article 3(3) of the Real Name

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the evidence alone, which was submitted by the prosecutor, was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the instant facts charged, and thus, it does not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the public prosecutor in the lower judgment

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.