The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, using the victim's resident registration number, had the defendant prepare a false statement of daily earned income as if the victim had worked part-time at the convenience store operated by the defendant, and the statement of daily income of daily employed workers is required to be specified for each worker, the resident registration number of each worker is the resident registration number of each worker, and the other's resident registration number is illegally used.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles, which found innocence otherwise.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds and rendered a not-guilty verdict pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the facts charged in the instant case fall under the absence of evidence

1. In addition to punishing “a person who illegally uses another person’s resident registration certificate” under Article 37 subparag. 8 of the Resident Registration Act, the purpose of punishing “a person who unlawfully uses another person’s resident registration number” under Article 37 subparag. 10 of the same Act is to punish “a person who unlawfully uses another person’s resident registration number” under Article 37 subparag. 10 of the same Act, and in light of the language and meaning and history of the above provision No. 10 of the same Act and the general principle of no crime of no punishment without law prohibiting the expanded interpretation of penal law, etc., Article 37 subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act does not present a tangible identification document stating a resident registration number, such as a resident registration certificate or a driver’s license, in a public and private life field and to punish the act of using a resident registration number without permission of the holder

Therefore, another person's resident registration number was used without permission of the possessor.

Even if the resident registration number is confirmed.