All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Defendant A 1) In fact, the part that opened a mobile phone with a forged identification card (a) (a) was sent by Defendant A to the USB camera where the copy, etc. of the resident registration certificate was stored by Defendant B, and thus, Defendant A could not immediately read it, and Defendant A was aware that it was a true copy, etc. of the resident registration certificate.

In addition, when Defendant A received 24 mobile phone terminals from E, Defendant A was aware that it was opened with the permission of the nominal owner.

In other words, Defendant A had no intention to commit the above crimes, so Defendant A cannot be a joint principal offender for each of the above crimes.

B) Of the parts that opened a mobile phone in the name of a juristic person (the part that opened the mobile phone in the name of the original judgment and the violation of the Radio Waves Act), the Defendant sought a mobile phone reproduction program and did not gather the criminal act of deceiving the mobile phone and the subsidy by requesting the mobile phone opening in the name of the juristic person immediately before the insolvency (the purpose of obtaining sales profit by resale of the opened mobile phone, and thus did not take part in the criminal act of fraud). 2) The sentence that the lower court sentenced the illegal sentencing (the imprisonment of one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1’s misunderstanding of facts (each point of the judgment below No. 1) (Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts in the judgment below) did not exchange contact with Defendant A from June 2012 to August 2012 that Defendant B committed the crime of forging a private document, etc. as stated at the time of solicitation in the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, Defendant B conspired to commit the crime.

Nor can it be viewed (the court below recognized a public contest relationship only based on Defendant A’s statement, and such judgment of the court below is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts). 2) Punishment which the court below rendered unfair sentencing (each of the crimes of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below).