[1] Whether a crime of unlawful use of a resident registration number is established where another person's resident registration number is used for any purpose other than identification without permission of the holder (negative)

[2] The case holding that where an insurance company entered into an insurance solicitation agency contract with an insurance company and submitted a list of qualified persons for insurance solicitation who retired from the insurance company without the consent of the insurance company, it shall not be deemed to have used another person's resident registration number in relation to identification and shall not be deemed to constitute a crime of unlawful use of resident registration number

[1] Article 21 (2) 9 of the former Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8422 of May 11, 2007) shall be deemed to be prescribed in order to punish the act of using a resident registration number without the permission of the holder of the resident registration number, unless the resident registration number was used without the permission of the holder, unless the resident registration number reaches the confirmation of the holder of the resident registration number or the personal identification or the specific use of the resident registration number for the purpose of identification or identification.

[2] The case holding that where an insurance company entered into an insurance solicitation agency contract with an insurance company and submitted a list of qualified persons for insurance solicitation who retired from the insurance company without the consent of the insurance company, it shall not be deemed to have used another person's resident registration number in relation to identification and shall not be deemed to constitute a crime of unlawful use of resident registration number

[1] Article 21 (2) 9 (see current Article 37 subparagraph 10) of the former Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 842 of May 11, 2007) / [2] Article 21 (2) 9 (see current Article 37 subparagraph 10) of the former Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 842 of May 11, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7830 Delivered on March 26, 2004

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Jeongp, Attorneys Lee Han-ap et al.

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008No2235 decided May 15, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 21 (2) 8 of the former Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8422 of May 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) separately from punishing “a person who illegally uses another person’s resident registration number” in Article 21 (2) 9 of the same Act, in light of the legislative meaning and amendment history of the above provision, and the general principle of no crime of no crime of no crime of no crime of no crime of no crime of no punishment, Article 21 (2) 9 of the former Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8422 of May 11, 2007) provides a provision punishing “a person who unlawfully uses another person’s resident registration number” in Article 21 (2) 9 of the same Act, and thus, Article 21 (2) 9 of the former Resident Registration Act does not provide a type of identification document stating a resident registration number, such as a resident registration number or a driver’s license, and only the name and resident registration number, etc., are identified for the purpose of a person’s identification without permission.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the defendant is the chief of general affairs division (name omitted) who sells insurance products, and (name omitted) in the process of concluding the contract with the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. with the insurance soliciting corporation, the non-indicted was already withdrawn from (name omitted) without the consent of the non-indicted who was requested by the interested Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. to submit a list of qualified executives and insurance solicitors, but the non-indicted was already retired from (name omitted) and submitted to the interested Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (name omitted) a list of (name omitted) the non-indicted's resident registration numbers indicating the non-indicted's resident registration numbers, and the defendant submitted a list of qualified executives and qualified persons whose resident registration numbers are stated in the non-indicted's resident registration numbers to the interesting Korea Life Insurance Corporation. Accordingly, the defendant's submission of a list of

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the unlawful use of resident registration numbers, thereby affecting the

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)