주민등록법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) informed the KT Telephone Bureau of the name and resident registration number of D and sent a copy of D’s resident registration number to the KT Telephone; (b) sent it to the KT Call Bureau a copy of D’s resident registration number in advance by facsimile; and (c) denied D’s resident registration number.
2. Determination
A. Article 37 subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act provides that an act of using a resident registration number shall be punished without the permission of the holder of the resident registration number or the act of using a resident registration number without the permission of the holder of the resident registration number, in a public and private life-related procedure where the holder’s name, resident registration number, etc. alone does not present a tangible identification document stating the resident registration number or a driver’s license and only his/her name, resident registration number, etc. is identified.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4574 Decided September 10, 2009). B.
According to the records, it is evident that the defendant did not run as if he were D at the time of the application for the resumption of the above telephone.
C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that at the time, it was true that D’s permission was not obtained, but that D’s partner expressed on the part of KT that D temporarily suspended the phone, and that D’s license was not used as if D’s permission was obtained.
According to the records, the KTT generally divides the case of request by the telephone holder and the case of request by his/her agent in the resumption of the telephone, the former confirms the identity, if confirmed, and if the identity is not confirmed, the latter sent by facsimile the identification card of the principal and his/her agent.