The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to fraud, misunderstanding of the legal principle or misunderstanding of the fact-finding 1), the Defendant considered a high interest rate illegal loan to collect, and did not have an intention to participate in the so-called so-called phishing crime.

2) As to the violation of the Resident Registration Act, the resident registration number entered by the Defendant at the time of remitting a passbook without passbook is not for identification, and thus does not constitute “illegal use” of the resident registration number under Article 37 subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act.

Since the Defendant did not recognize that he did not have the right to use resident registration numbers, there was no intention to “illegal use”.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, based on the background leading up to the Defendant’s liability for remittance, the form of remittance liability, and the amount of money and expenses, etc., determined that the Defendant did not commit the crime of fraud.

In addition, since the defendant used the resident registration number for personal identification or for a specific purpose, it was determined that the defendant constitutes "illegal use" of resident registration number.

In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s judgment is sufficiently acceptable.

It seems that the defendant was aware that he was involved in illegal work, and that he was able to do so.

Nevertheless, the defendant has served as a liability for remittance over 36 times, and the number of illegal use of resident registration numbers also reaches 311 times.

In view of the fact that the collection of high interest illegal loans is a collection of money, the method of collecting and remitting the money is very exceptional, and it is difficult to explain the reason why the defendant was misrepresented or the remittance source was changed.

The defendant's profit also can be received as a part-time fee.