Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts as to the exercise of private electromagnetic records, etc. (not guilty part of the court below) can be recognized that the Defendant forged and uses smart applications in the name B, which is a prior recording, as described in this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence that the court below acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, which

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged on the following grounds. ① The fact that the Defendant prepared and transmitted the smart application in the name B as shown in the facts charged is recognized. ② However, the Defendant’s relationship between the Defendant and B, B or his family members opened the cell phone in the Defendant’s store; ② the Defendant’s personal identification card or personal documents opened to the Internet or for other purposes; ② the Defendant’s personal identification card or personal documents opened to the Internet; ② the need for the identification card; ② the details of the mobile phone identity theft prevention service (Evidence No. 2) and the fact that the text messages opened to the mobile phone around September 2017 were delivered to the Defendant’s actual cell phone opening at the time; and ② it is difficult to recognize the possibility that the Defendant knew or mistakenly recorded the fact that the Defendant consented to the opening of the mobile phone opening at the time, or consented to the Defendant’s request. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s criminal facts in addition to the testimony submitted by the prosecutor.