A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

2. The judgment of the court below.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal part of the court below), although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant, as if he received an application for opening a normally cell phone from the customer, by deceiving the victim communications company, received a total of KRW 61,294,737 from the victim communications company, and obtained a sales incentive amounting to KRW 61,294,737,

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the judgment below at the trial of the court below, the prosecutor “Nos. 70 through 125” in the annexed crime list of the annexed crime list No. 2572, the prosecutor specified the victim Nos. 120 in the annexed crime list No. 120 in the annexed crime list “No. 70 through 125” in the annexed crime No. 2017 order of the court below. However, according to the records, the victim No. 120 in the annexed crime list No. 120 in the annexed crime list No. 120 in the annexed crime list is EK and DX is a representative of EK (the court below 2017 order No. 2572 of the annexed evidence No. 2572 of the court below) and ex officio correct the victim No. 120 in the annexed crime list to EK.

Although this Court applied for the amendment of the indictment with the same content as above and permitted it, the above amendment of the indictment does not affect the exercise of the defendant's right of defense by specifying the general telecommunications company specifically within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged, and it cannot be viewed that the subject of the judgment was changed. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not reversed on this ground.

B. We examine the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor's mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles in detail in light of the record, and also 1. The opening time of mobile phone opening.