The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal does not have any evidence to readily conclude that the Defendant was aware of the “act of taking out a loan by accumulating the false transaction records.” However, it is evident that there was an awareness of the “act of obtaining a loan by accumulating the false transaction records,” and the “act of obtaining a loan by creating the false financial transaction details and raising the transaction performance or credit rating” constitutes a fraud by deceiving the financial institution with the ability to repay, and constitutes an “an evasion of the law” under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that “ insofar as it appears that the Defendant was unable to recognize the nature of the funds deposited and withdrawn from one’s own account from the beginning, it is difficult to readily conclude that the non-person who was the principal offender was aware of his financial transaction with the Defendant’s real name for the purpose of evading the law.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by

2. Determination

A. The facts charged in the instant case are based on the premise that the “act of depositing and withdrawing money to obtain a loan by accumulating false transaction records” is “other evasion of the law” under Articles 6(1) and 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy (hereinafter “Real Name Financial Transactions Act”), and that the person who was the principal offender was engaged in financial transactions under the real name of the Defendant who is another person for the purpose of evading the above law.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone constituted a crime of violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions by a person who was unable to obtain the name, which is the principal offender.

In addition, it is insufficient to conclude that the Defendant had the intention to commit the crime of violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions.