The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Evidence of seizure 1 to 3.0

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. Prosecutor 1) Since the misapprehension of the legal principle is recognized as willful negligence of aiding and abetting fraud, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of aiding and abetting fraud among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) of the court below is too uneasible

2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below as to the conviction prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio judgment.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the bill of amendment to the indictment, which withdraws 28 times a year of the list of crimes in violation of the Telecommunications Business Act (the identity of the facts charged is recognized as the withdrawal of part of several crimes in a commercial concurrent relationship), among the facts charged in violation of this part of the Telecommunications Business Act, and this court permitted it (the identity of the facts charged is recognized as the withdrawal of part of the crimes in a

In addition, it is reasonable to view that the act of providing multiple telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator for communications purposes at the same time and at the same place constitutes a single act committed several offenses of violating the Telecommunications Business Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010, etc. on the transfer of access media). The lower court, without determining that each of the offenses of violating the Telecommunications Business Act, which provided core chips at the same time and at the same time and at the same place, is in a mutually competitive relationship between each of the offenses of violating the said Act, without determining that all of the offenses of the instant telecommunications business were committed, by determining punishment within the scope of the term of punishment imposed, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, in this respect, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. A prosecutor;