2. The crime of this case is determined by the following facts: (a) the defendant opened a mobile phone in the name of another person, and forged or used an application form for joining another person's mobile phone with intent to obtain economic benefits by selling it; and (b) the crime of this case is considerably poor in light of the circumstances of the crime

However, in full view of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects all his mistake, the fact that there is no same power, the fact that there is no special robbery for which a judgment has become final and conclusive, etc., and the fact that equity should be taken into account when a judgment is rendered simultaneously with the attempts to commit a special robbery, etc., and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive for committing the crime

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is apparent that the omission of “Article 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the 1. Concurrent Crimes” was clearly made between the 3rd and 4th column for the application of the law of the court below, and therefore, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on the Criminal