The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant had opened a opphone 7 mobile phone of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) On July 14, 2017, the Defendant only received one unit of a gallon from E when he/she was requested to open a gallon, without requesting the opening of a galphone 7 mobile phone, or he/she received a galon 7 mobile phone, and he/she appears to have opened a gallon (round July 18, 2017).

(2) Although the witness D, who was an employee of the Cagency, at the time of request for opening a cell phone, testified that he was using two mobile phones from the Defendant at the court of original instance that he had opened a cell phone (6-70 pages of the trial record) and testified that he was using two mobile phones at the time of taking a cell phone (83 pages, 91-94 pages of the investigation record, 83 pages, 91-94 pages). The Defendant’s wife F in the phone conversations with the above D, stating that “The phone, which was opened in the name of E, was examined.”

(A) The Defendant testified to the effect that the Defendant did not know of the instant Aphone 7 mobile phone at the lower court court court’s court’s trial to the effect that the said F made it consistent with the Defendant’s assertion. However, the said F made a call with D as above, and the Defendant and the said F made a call with the Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Investigation Record 2:51,76-81”) on the part of the Defendant and the said F made it difficult to believe that the said statement was made in light of the investigative record 51,76-81.

B. It is advantageous to the defendant who did not have the same criminal record on the argument of unfair sentencing.