The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of misunderstanding the fact, did not have forged and used the mobile phone entrance application in the name of the victim E, and did not err by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence of a fine of KRW 1.5 million imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant forged the victim’s mobile phone subscription application and used it can be recognized.

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

1) The Defendant: (a) reported at an investigative agency and the lower court’s opening of a mobile phone in order to open two mobile phones in the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”); and (b) entered the office of a mobile phone agent in the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

was stated.

2) The instant company is bound to apply for joining in the name of representative director in the name of the said company in order to open a mobile phone to the company where the Defendant is the actual representative and the damaged person is the representative director under the name of the said company. Therefore, at the time, the Defendant is bound to have intended to use the victim’s name.

3) There was no consent from the victim to open a mobile phone in the name of the victim, and there was no knowledge of the fact that the mobile phone was admitted to the demand for the payment of the mobile phone fees.

4) Two copies of the application for joining a mobile phone in the name of the victim were prepared and delivered to the mobile phone agent, and the defendant at that time was the defendant.