Criminal facts in violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions by the Defendant, which the first instance court's decision, found on March 13, 1983, are the facts constituting a violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions of the Defendant, and the Defendant requested that the Defendant provide data or information about the details of financial transactions to a person engaged in financial institutions by putting the above president out of the office of the Defendant outside of the office of the Defendant, while the Defendant putting the above president out of the nearby printing office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and then copying the above loan ledger with the above loan ledger for the display of the loan ledger on several occasions at the office of the Korea Special Metropolitan City Community Community Treasury, which is located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: First, the defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the above Act because he knew of the enactment of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions at the time of the above crime, and second, the defendant's above crime was committed for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of the members by clarifying the denial of operation of village safe. Thus, it cannot be viewed as unlawful.

However, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's own act is not a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a reasonable ground for misunderstanding." However, it does not mean a simple legal site, but in general, it is recognized that an act constitutes a crime, which is permitted by the law in special cases, does not constitute a crime, and if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding, it shall not be punishable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4294Do208, Oct. 5, 1961; 79Do1308, Jun. 26, 1979; 79Do285, Feb. 12, 1980). However, the above grounds for appeal do not violate Article 17 of the Criminal Act's provision of information, and thus, it does not violate the principle of social norms or legitimate grounds for misunderstanding that the defendant's request for information was permitted at the time of the crime, and it does not violate the principle of social norms or legitimate interests.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju