금융실명거래및비밀보장에관한법률위반방조
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) constituted an evasion of the law as stipulated in the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter “Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality”) by the Defendant’s repeated act of entering and withdrawing money from the account under the name of the Defendant in order to write down transaction performance on the premise of the loan by the direction of the person who has failed to obtain the name. The Defendant had the awareness and intent of having the principal offender intentionally, that is,, the name of the Defendant
Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles since it is difficult to view the defendant's act as an evasion of the law under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case.
2. The additional prosecutor subject to a trial following the amendment of indictment shall be the primary charge against the defendant, and the name of the crime shall be "Fraud", "Article 347 (1) and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act", and "Article 4 of the Criminal Act" shall be the following 4-A.
In addition to the "preliminary facts charged" stated in the paragraph, the application for amendment to the bill of amendment was filed, and this court permitted this and added the subject of the judgment.
Therefore, the main facts charged and the ancillary facts added in the trial are examined in order.
3. The lower court rendered a judgment on the primary facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view that the term “work loan” in the part of innocence constitutes “other evasion of the law” under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had awareness and intent to engage in financial transactions under the name of another person who is the principal offender. In so doing, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable in light of the records of this case, and it is so decided.