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 the defendant was aware that the account holder of the name borrowed from the name borrowed from the account of this case was paid to the account of this case directly or through the employees of the lending company in accordance with the agreement with the name borrowed from the account holder who would deposit the money to the account of this case for the purpose of drawing up the appearance of the deposit transaction records, and that the account number of this case was received from a third party unrelated to the financial transaction agreement between the defendant and the name borrowed from the account holder. This conclusion does not change due to the circumstance that the financial transaction agreement using the account of this case between the defendant and the name borrowed from the account of this case was made for the purpose of drawing up the appearance of the deposit transaction records, and that the defendant would withdraw the money to be paid to the account of this case and return it to the name borrowed person.

On the contrary, there is no sufficient evidence to recognize that the defendant was aware that the non-resident was making a financial transaction due to the defendant's real name, and that he was informed of the account number of this case to the non-resident.

As such, the defendant's intention cannot be acknowledged to the effect that the person who was unable to name as the principal offender is engaged in 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 and Guarantee

3. The following circumstances recognized by the records of the party review: