The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Nos. 1 and 2 of seized evidence from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit this part of the crime in collusion with the J, and did not have any intention to change the phone number.

2) The Defendant was aware of aiding and abetting the commission of a principal offender, that is, there was no intention to assist the principal offender, and there was no intention to commit an act that constitutes a principal offender, i.e., the principal offender’s act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment ex officio (as to the violation of telecommunications business due to the defendant's sole crime), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

(a) No person who has the gist of this part of the facts charged shall provide services that can display false numbers, such as duplicating the caller's phone number for profit-making purposes;

Nevertheless, around July 1, 2015, the Defendant provided services using the phone number of 167 times in total as shown on the list of crimes in attached Table 1 of the lower judgment, from the time when the phone number was changed to I and the phone number was changed to H that cannot be used as an Internet phone number in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations on the Management of Telecommunications Numbers in the Future Creation and Creation of Telecommunications Numbers, at the price of KRW 78 per minute from the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “F”).

B. Determination 1) Since the so-called business crime of so-called "business crime" is a type of collective crime, which is naturally expected to repeat the same kind of act in the nature of its constituent elements, it shall be deemed as constituting such business crime, and multiple acts continuously and repeatedly conducted in the same place for a certain period, barring any special circumstance, constitute one crime comprehensively (Supreme Court Decision 23 December 23, 2005).