The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) The Defendant’s crime of violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter “Real Name Financial Transactions Act”) does not constitute a separate crime because the nonperformance of fraud constitutes an ex post facto act.

2) Even if the offense of violation of the Resident Registration Act and the offense of violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions are separately established, both crimes constitute a mutually competitive relationship.

B. The punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment (five years of suspended execution) and one year of observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. In order to be assessed as an ex post facto act by which determination on the assertion of an ex post facto act is inappropriate, the ex post facto act should be deemed as identical to the principal crime and the protection of the legal interests and should not exceed the amount of infringement.

However, since the defendant's act of using his resident registration number unlawfully and making a transaction by using another person's real name for the purpose of evading the law is an act infringing a new legal interest separate from the crime of fraud, it is difficult to view it as an ex post facto act.

B. Determination as to the assertion of commercial concurrence refers to cases where a single act constitutes several crimes (Article 40 of the Criminal Act). Here, “one act” refers to cases where an act is evaluated as one of the natural conditions of things, regardless of the legal evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do11687, Sept. 21, 2017). The Defendant’s act of remitting a passbook without passbook using another’s real name by entering another’s resident registration number in the automation device of a bank can be evaluated as one act in light of social norms.

Therefore, the crime of violation of the Resident Registration Act and the crime of violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions is in the relationship of commercial concurrence for each nominal owner.

It is reasonable to view it.

(c)

However, the violation of the Resident Registration Act and the violation of each Act on Real Name Financial Transactions constitutes the commercial concurrence relationship between each nominal owner and the violation of each Act on Real Name Financial Transactions.