The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant filed a report on value-added tax at the office of the Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, in 2014, in the report ledger from October 2013 to December 2013, the Defendant entered “F”, a resident registration number of E, a resident registration number of the said company performed only the mold, into the report ledger, without permission of E, within April 4, 2013, from October 2013 to December 4, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant used another person's resident registration number unlawfully.

2. Determination:

A. 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 punishment without the law prohibiting the expansion and interpretation of penal law, 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 driver’s license, and used another person’s resident registration number without the permission of the holder of the resident registration number in a public or private life where it is possible to confirm the identity of the person or identify another person’s property or property without the permission of the holder of the resident registration number.

Even if the resident registration number is used for the identification of the person in question or for a specific purpose, the crime of unlawful use of the resident registration number under the above provision shall not be established unless it reaches the case.

Supreme Court Decision 201. February 1, 2014