The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2 of the Telecommunications Business Act provides that "telecommunications" in this Act means transmission or reception of codes, words, sounds, or images by wire, wireless, optical, or other electronic means; "telecommunications facilities" means machinery, equipment, lines for telecommunications, and other facilities necessary for telecommunications; "telecommunications services" means mediating another's communications or providing other's telecommunications facilities for communications; "user" means a person who has entered into a contract for the use of telecommunications services with a telecommunications business operator to provide telecommunications services; and Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act provides that no person shall intermediate another's communications or provide other's telecommunications services for communications (Article 4) with the exception of cases where a user allows a third party to use his/her mobile phone to the extent that it is not repeatedly provided by the telecommunications business operator (Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act). Thus, the act of a telecommunications business operator entering into a contract for the use of mobile phone services and then transfer his/her mobile phone ultimately to a third party through the transfer of telecommunications services to a third party constitutes providing telecommunications services for another's communications.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case were found guilty, and it was just to reverse the judgment of the court below, and there was no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.