The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the judgment of the court below is that Article 37 subparagraph 10 of the Resident Registration Act does not present a tangible identification document stating the resident registration number of the holder of a title deed, such as a resident registration certificate or driver's license, in a public and private life field, and it is prescribed to punish the act of using the resident registration number without the permission of the holder of a resident registration number, as if the holder was permitted, or as if the holder was the owner, in a procedure that makes it possible to identify or specify the person with his/her name and resident registration number, etc.

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.

Article 37 subparagraph 10 of the Resident Registration Act is not applicable to the defendant's above act, since the defendant's act of entering his resident registration number, etc. in documents related to the return of value-added tax without permission of 67 persons such as I and submitting them to the tax office cannot be deemed to have used others' resident registration number in relation to identification.

2. It is unreasonable to interpret Article 37 subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act as the court below's decision on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

Based on the above argument, the prosecutor only provides for punishing “a person who illegally uses another person’s resident registration number” under Article 37 subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act, but does not impose any restrictions on the scope of unlawful use, and ② interpret it as including the use of another person’s resident registration number without obtaining consent from the concept of unlawful use.