A. (1) misunderstanding of facts (1) The Defendant knew that B obtained consent from the victim to open a mobile phone in the name of the victim, and even if the Defendant did not have any intent to forge or use a private document or to commit fraud, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant made a confession of facts in the court of original instance regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in the court of original instance, the Defendant is dissatisfied with the purport of mistake in the court of original instance. The Defendant’s confession made in the court of original instance differs from the court of original instance’s statement in the court of original instance, and the admissibility or credibility of the confession cannot be said to be doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confession, the credibility of the confession should be determined in consideration of whether the contents of the confession are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the motive or reason for the confession, and what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what does not conflict with or conflict with other evidence

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a resident registration certificate under Article 10 of the former Act, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a cell phone, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a cell phone, etc., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a cell phone, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a cell phone, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a cell phone, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.