The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The so-called “work loan”, which receives a loan by making a false transaction record, constitutes fraud by deceiving a financial institution with respect to the ability to repay debts, and the statutory penalty for fraud is more severe than the statutory penalty for the crime of evading compulsory execution presented by Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter “Act on Real Name Financial Transactions”). In light of the fact that “work loan” in the prior meaning of an evasion of the law is an act of evading the law related to loans regardless of whether it constitutes fraud, and it is obvious that it constitutes an evasion of the law, it is reasonable to deem that “work loan” constitutes an evasion of the law under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions

Nevertheless, the court below rendered not guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Judgment

In full view of the fact that Article 6(1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions provides a detailed basis for “2. Determination,” and that Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions provides that the purpose of punishing an act of financial transaction under another person’s real name is to prevent the abuse of such financial transaction as an illegal or unlawful evasion of law or means of crime, such as concealment of criminal proceeds, creation of funds, evasion of taxes, money laundering, etc., and Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, the term “other evasion of law” should reach the extent corresponding to the evasion of illegal property concealment, money laundering, financing of terrorism, and compulsory execution, and it is difficult to regard the term “work loan” as one of them, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute cases not constituting a crime.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below examined the above judgment and submitted by the prosecutor.