The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6,500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the resident registration number among the facts charged in this case as the defendant used four resident registration numbers of other persons in order to join the Internet site with permission from other persons.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Resident Registration Act using R’s resident registration number, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s statement in the lower court and the trial court, the statement in each police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, and the statement in S’s written statement, R may be acknowledged as part-time students employed by the Defendant to commit each of the crimes of this case, and R may directly use the Defendant’s resident registration number to use or to provide the Defendant’s order. In light of such recognized facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was unlawfully used the Defendant’s resident registration number without the R’s permission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake on this part is justified.

B. As to the remaining violation of the Resident Registration Act, according to the statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol as of December 23, 201 and investigation report (verification of suspect's suspected violation of the Resident Registration Act) against the defendant, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that he used his resident registration number unlawfully to join the Internet site without permission from T, U, and V (hereinafter "T, etc."), and the witness P's statement in the court of the court below as to the violation of the above provision is not reliable, such as by explaining a different status relationship with T, etc. in light of each family relation certificate (Evidence No. 4-1 and No. 4-2). The W's statement is separate from whether the defendant consented to the opening of the cell phone, etc.