A. The Defendant did not know that the new contract of this case was forged at the time of transmitting the image file of the new contract of this case to D.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following facts acknowledged by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts were duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant was engaged in the business with the business with the Blue House, Inc., the mobile phone opening agent, and received incentives depending on the number of subscription applications. However, the Defendant sent the image file of the instant new contract to D, the Defendant, whose account number was indicated in the column for the payment method of charges, to Blue officer, and received the mobile phone delivery from D; ② the Defendant sent the image file of the instant new contract via e-mail via a solicitation advertisement.

D) The police did not know that the Defendant was directly receiving the new contract of this case from the above operator C.

(4) The Defendant, even before committing the instant crime, has the record of committing the crime by forging a written application for joining a mobile phone exceeding 100 cases and using it, and there was a record of committing the crime by deceiving the opening subsidy and the horses, and 5 The Defendant anticipated that the Defendant would not withstanding in the prosecution that the image file of the new contract of this case was forged and sent, but acknowledged that he sent it again to D as a me, and continued to deny the instant crime, and the Defendant’s confession statement was false.

In full view of the fact that there is no circumstance to see that the Defendant was aware that the new contract of this case was forged at the time when he sent the image file of the new contract of this case to D.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, it is true.