A. The Defendants (De facto mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles) deposited money donated by Defendant A in the name of his mother in the name of C. As such, Defendant A owned the above Defendant, and Defendant A had the passbook and seal before the death of Defendant C, and managed and disposed of the instant deposit.

Therefore, at the time of withdrawal of the deposit of this case, Defendant A had the intent to obtain fraud from the victim D bank.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent to forge the entry money check to the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (unfairness) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendants A and the suspended sentence of a fine of five million won for the defendant B) are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in case where a deposit contract is concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact of the contract is clearly indicated in the real name verification statement, it would normally be reasonable in accordance with empirical rules to interpret that the deposit title holder, the actor, and the intent of the financial institution acting for him/her in the deposit contract is to be the party to the deposit contract, and it would be reasonable to clarify the legal relationship as to the party to the deposit contract. In addition, such legal principle as to the interpretation of the party to the deposit contract is reasonable, when the deposit title holder was present in the financial institution and entered into the

A. It should be deemed that all the cases of concluding a deposit contract as a proxy are equally applicable.

Therefore, the will of the title holder of the principal.