beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant was aware of the fact that his name was easily engaged in financial transactions with a third party with the real name of the Defendant for the purpose of evading the law, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is prohibited from engaging in financial transactions under the real name of another person for the purpose of evading the law.
On June 17, 2019, the Defendant: (a) heard the rumor that “A loan is possible because of the party’s credit recovery and then, if a certain amount of transactions is generated in excess of a certain amount of money, it is possible to loan KRW 25 million; and (b) the party shall bear 5% of the fee” from the person who was not the party’s name; (c) and (d) accepted such a statement, thereby having the Defendant’s account in the name of the party to the law of the party who
Accordingly, on June 17, 2019, the Defendant informed the account number and its password of B bank account (C) in the name of the Defendant using Internet Kakakao Stockholm via a cell phone at an unspecified place. On June 17, 2019, the Defendant was transferred KRW 5,60,000 from D through telephone financial fraud around June 19, 2019 to the said account under the name of the Defendant.
Accordingly, the Defendant assisted and aided the Defendant by facilitating financial transactions under the real name of another person for the purpose of evading the law.
B. The lower court determined that “the Defendant was aware of his bank account number, etc. as a means of stockpiling the results of entering and leaving the account in accordance with the proposal of a person who has failed to obtain a loan, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant, beyond the above degree, was aware and intentionally, committed a financial transaction with a third party in the name of the Defendant.