The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, who is a director, is a Z of the AC Religious Organization (hereinafter “Z”).

Since a request for information on an account related to AD owned by another person is not required to provide information on another person's financial transaction (in fact, mistake) and P used another person's account without complying with an agreement between the Z, which is not subject to the protection of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (misunderstanding of legal principles), since it is for the public interest to protect the property owned by the defendant, the illegality is eliminated (misunderstanding of legal principles), and the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The defendant B's act is for the public interest purpose (misunderstanding of facts), and the defendant's act is a legitimate act, and its illegality is dismissed (misunderstanding of legal principles). 2.

A. Article 4(4) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality provides or divulges transaction information, etc. that he/she has become aware of pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

As stipulated in the above provision, “other person” as stipulated in the above provision refers to all other persons except the nominal person. Thus, even if the defendant is a Z-related account in which he is employed as a director, it constitutes “other person” and thus, the defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is rejected.

The Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, which intends to guarantee the confidentiality of financial transactions and promote normalization of financial transactions, even if P used accounts in violation of the agreement between the Z and other accounts in the name other than the Z.