The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to open a cell phone (personal use and business) to be used by the Defendant with bad credit standing at the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) requested the mother E to submit documents necessary for opening the cell phone; and (b) prepared two copies of the instant mobile phone new contract in the name of E.

Although the Defendant, upon delegation of legitimate authority from E, drafted two copies of a mobile phone new contract, the lower judgment that found him guilty of this part of the facts charged on a entirely different premise is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of one and half years of imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) E is a senior citizen of the 70th century, and is living in the mouth for a long time; and (ii) E is seeking to pay money by means of telephone on the day of the instant case (the Defendant’s mother); and (iii) the president’s face should be checked.

The phrase “a copy of the resident registration certificate was changed, and there was no consent to the opening of a mobile phone only after sending the certificate of the personal seal impression, and there was no consent to the opening of the mobile phone.” The Defendant stated that he made a false statement (which means that the Defendant gave the amount or time of lending the mobile phone name; however, the circumstances where the amount or time, etc. of the money was not disclosed and the actual payment was not confirmed). ③ The Defendant directly stated the customer column (E signature) of two copies of the instant new mobile phone contract, and ④ the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the fact that he knew that he would not actively open the mobile phone under the name of E.