The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated as provided for in subparagraphs 1 through 22.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles (based on fraud by use of computers, etc.) 1) The Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the charge imposed on the mobile phone, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

2) There is no relation between the act in which the defendant entered false sending information without authorization and the cause for which the defendant acquired property benefits.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

From July 2013 to February 2015, a prosecutor has not paid an amount equivalent to KRW 87 million in international telephone service charges from a person who transacted with C from July 2013 to February 2, 2015, and has acquired pecuniary profits by failing to pay an amount equivalent to KRW 218,920,042 (victim Ecom Telecom amounting to KRW 147,570,120, and Victim Ecom amounting to KRW 71,349,922).

“The part” acquired pecuniary benefits using international currency services of an amount equivalent to KRW 435 million from July 2013 to February 2015.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment” was filed, and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this Court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, there is still a ground for misunderstanding the legal doctrine to the effect that “the act of inputting false sending information without authority and the cause for acquiring property benefits are not related to the causal relationship between the cause for which the defendant acquired property benefits without authority.” Thus, we examine the following facts: (a) the assertion that there was no criminal intent to commit fraud because there was intent and ability to pay the charge imposed on the mobile phone; (b) the Defendant’s pecuniary benefits acquired due to changes in the indictment are not “amount of unpaid charges imposed on the mobile phone,” but rather “435 million won.”