The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, on the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance, withdrawn an assertion of mistake of facts as to the aiding and abetting the fraud.

There is no evidence that the nominal owner of the resident registration number in this case did not consent to the use of his resident registration number, and the defendant thought that there was such consent, and there was no perception that he used another person'

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the assertion of facts. Article 37 subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act, without presenting a tangible identification document with the resident registration number or driver's license in various public and private areas of life, should be deemed to be prescribed in order to punish the act of using a resident registration number without the consent of the resident registration number holder or in the procedure where personal identification or identification is possible. Thus, even if another person's resident registration number was used without the consent of the holder, the crime of unlawful use of the resident registration number under the above provision is not established unless the resident registration number was confirmed or used for personal identification or specific purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10461, Feb. 27, 2014).