A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below), the Defendant posted an advertisement stating the phrase “the direct payment at 60-99 million won when purchasing a personal phone” in his daily information, etc., the Defendant reported the above advertisement, and then sold it immediately without delivering or showing the mobile phone openings to the persons who found the advertisement. The Defendant can be deemed to have provided the money by pretending to purchase the mobile phone. The Defendant can be deemed to have provided the money by pretending to the purchase of the mobile phone, and the Defendant’s payment of the money to the telecommunications company is deemed to have the nature of the loan to the customer. The Defendant’s payment of the money to the telecommunications company can be deemed to have been made by the Defendant in lieu of the payment of the loan to the Defendant. In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s monetary payment constitutes “loan” under the Act on the Registration of Loan Business and the Protection of Financial Users, etc., even if recognized, the judgment below erred by misapprehending

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unhued and unfair.

2. On March 15, 2016, the ex officio determination prosecutor proposed that “The Defendant would pay the amount of money equivalent to the number of the cell phoness if opened the cell phone” from the “EF” of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around March 15, 2016, and demanded G to prepare a new application for the purchase of the cell phone in the name of the same person, and submitted it to the victim SK Telecom Co., Ltd. as if G would normally file an application for the new purchase of the cell phone in a normal manner.

However, in fact, the above G reported the advertisement of the Defendant’s cellphone loan, and prepared the above documents by contacting the Defendant, but did not intend to open the cell phone normally, and the Defendant did not intend to use it.