Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the principal offender's intention cannot be recognized.

2. The gist of the judgment of the court below is that an act of financial transaction recognized by the defendant is merely an act of financial transaction under the name of another person, not an act of financial transaction under the name of another person but an act of financial transaction under the name of another person in the name of another person in the form of receiving funds from the name of another person in the name of another person in the name of another person in order to create a deposit transaction appearance.

Even if such an act is an evasion of the law that intends to obtain a loan by forming an appearance type as if it was of credit, it does not constitute an act of making financial transactions under the real name of another person.

The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount transferred to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant at the time of the instant case was transferred by a third party unrelated to the financial transaction agreement between the Defendant and the non-indicted, namely, the amount transferred by the third party, the victim, due to the crime of telephone financial fraud by the non-indicted in the name of the principal offender. It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had dolusently known that the amount acquired from a third party under the real name of the Defendant, the name of the third party

In the end, the defendant's intention cannot be recognized that the person who was unable to name the principal offender is conducting financial transactions under the real name of another person. Thus, the defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions

3. Recognizing the records of the decision of the Committee, the following: