A. The Defendant did not agree to open a mobile phone under the name of the Defendant on June 7, 2010 to the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's assertion of mistake of facts and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e.,, C opened and used a mobile phone under the name of the defendant on June 2010 upon request of the defendant, which was consistent with the investigation agency and the court below. At the time, the defendant used the same apartment house, which was known to him and used. At the time, the defendant used only the name of the defendant, and applied for automatic transfer to the head of Tong within e apartment commercial building FF agency, and the address of the notice was also the place of receipt. However, the above mobile phone machine is Sldrid, and the text was written, so it was newly opened a new mobile phone with the defendant upon request of the defendant, and the mechanical installment was paid and returned immediately after this day. After which, at the time of the first opening of the mobile phone, C used the mobile phone in the name of the defendant and the defendant's new mobile phone and reported the loss of it to the defendant's address.