Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and eight months.

Defendant

Of the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance court of mistake of facts, the part No. 20 (victim AW) and No. 33 (victim AX) recorded in the crime sight table 2, and the defendant opened a normally cell phone at the request of the above holder of a title deed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentencing (the first instance court: the imprisonment of two years, and the second instance: the imprisonment of one year) of the judgments of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The sentencing of the judgment of the first instance court of the prosecutor is too unfortunate and unfair.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment.

The court of the first instance decided to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

However, since each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in the event that the concurrent crimes are judged at the same time, one of the concurrent crimes should be sentenced within the scope of punishment aggravated under Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below cannot be upheld as it is.

However, since the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, it shall be judged separately below.

The defendant, who made a judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, made a confession of all the facts charged in the court below, but is dissatisfied with the above part of the facts charged.

However, according to the testimony of the witness AW and the confirmation statement of facts in AW and AX, the mobile phone of the victim AW and AX appears to have been properly opened by the defendant after receiving a lawful application from AW and AX, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that this part of the facts charged is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Criminal facts which have been prosecuted in a criminal trial.