The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter “Act on Real Name Financial Transactions”) does not directly violate the provisions of law, but it does not mean an act practically realized by the means of avoiding the prohibition of law, and it does not mean an act corresponding to an act listed in the same provision. In light of the legislative purpose of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy, “an act realized by the means of avoiding the prohibition of law even if it falls under an offense or does not reach an offense” is comprehensively referred to as “an act committed by the means of avoiding the prohibition of law.”

The Defendant’s “an act of entering and leaving a loan to obtain a loan by accumulating false transaction performance” is not a normal loan method, and thus constitutes fraud against financial institutions. It constitutes an act of practically realizing by means of avoidance of laws and regulations, and constitutes an evasion of the law.

In the case of aiding and abetting, the intention of the principal offender is sufficient to dolusence or predictability, and thus, the defendant aided and abetting the person in whose name the principal offender made financial transactions under the real name of the defendant for the purpose of evading the law.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles on the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions.

2. The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not constitute an evasion of the law, “an act of making a deposit or withdrawal to obtain a loan by accumulating false transaction performance” under Article 3(3) of the Act on the Real Name Financial Transactions, where the Defendant was actually able to preserve the public prosecution of this case by making detailed statements from the 2th page 14 to 4th page 18 of the lower judgment.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to see it.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.