A. Defendant 1) In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 did not allow B to transfer his mobile phone ultimately to use it, and thus does not constitute “case of providing it for another’s communications” as prohibited by the main sentence of Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act. Even if the case falls under such a case, there exists a ground for denying illegality or liability. Nevertheless, the lower court convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Regarding the part of acquittal of facts, the Defendant and B conspired with, or aiding and abetting the crime in question, in light of the fact that the Defendant and B are private villages, the background leading up to the call between the Defendant and the airport, and the Defendant’s provision of accommodation and cellular phone to B. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as otherwise alleged in the above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the allegation of mistake of facts

In the prosecution, the defendant opened a cell by obtaining a core chip in the name of the defendant, and the back part of the phone number was H, which was operated by B in Korea.