2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant on the part of the victim, stating that “The Defendant purchased a heavy difference from one’s own name and sold it to increase credit.” The Defendant was provided with an identification card and personal information from the victim and borrowed KRW 10 million in the victim’s name. The Defendant, even though there was no intention to open two cell phoness for the victim, would open a cell phone in the victim’s name and acquire pecuniary benefits by opening two cell phoness of a mobile phone with an aggregate of KRW 1730,000 in the market price in the victim’s name. The Defendant had been punished five times (five times prior to the actual sentence) for the same crime, and the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same kind.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized all of his criminal acts; (b) the Defendant agreed on the amount of damage to the victim and agreed with the victim; (c) the victim sought the Defendant’s wife; and (d) the instant crime ought to be considered at the same time in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with prior criminal records as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment; and (b) comprehensively taking account of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime,

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.