The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The so-called “work loan” that is extended by a financial institution by creating a false transaction record based on the substance of the grounds of appeal constitutes an evasion of the law as provided by Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting 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 May 2, 2019, the Defendant listened to the statement that “it is intended to create a false transaction performance and offer a work loan” from a person with no name, and agreed to that statement, thereby raising the account under the name of the Defendant to offer it to the evasion of the law of the person with no name.

Accordingly, on May 2, 2019, the Defendant informed the account number of B bank account (C) in the name of the Defendant using the Internet Kakao Stockholm via a cell phone at an off-site location, and the above person under whose name the account is not opened was transferred KRW 46,00,000 from D through telephone financial fraud around May 7, 2019.

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 rendered a judgment that acquitted of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

C. The court below held that it is difficult to view that the “work loan” constitutes an “other evasion of the law” under Article 3(3) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, based on the circumstances stated in its holding, and that it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as the Defendant, was aware of the fact that he/she deposited the money acquired from a third party through a telephone financial fraud crime into the account in the name of the Defendant and engaged in financial transactions under the Defendant’s real name.