The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair imprisonment with labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant committed the same crime as stated in this part of the facts charged, such as misunderstanding of facts (the fact-finding and unfair sentencing) 1) (the fact-finding of the private document against the Defendant B, the use of the above investigation document, the fraud, and the use of computer, etc.) without the consent of the Z, opening the mobile phone in the name of the Z and paying small amounts by using it. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) against the Defendant B of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair

2. In a criminal trial for determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735 Decided April 27, 2006). The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds of its holding.

If the reasoning of the judgment below is closely compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the prosecutor

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

3. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. The lower court, in light of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was aware of and against the commission of the crime, that the victims do not want the punishment against the Defendant, and that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and that the amount of damage is large, and the damage is considerable.