The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, with the consent from E, prepared and exercised a mobile phone contract.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the charge of forging private documents and using the falsified investigation documents is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) around June 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had a resident registration certificate under the name of the employee E in the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C, and D office operated by the Defendant; and (b) had a pre-paid phone in the name of E.

At the above office, the Defendant stated “E” and “F address column” in the name column with the color pen attached to the mobile phone contract, and stated “E” in the name column, “E” and “E” in the column of the date of application, and written on June 15, 2015, and attached the front copy of the resident registration certificate under the name of E, which was kept in the office.

As a result, the Defendant forged one copy of the mobile telephone contract in the name of E, a private document related to rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

(2) The Defendant, at the time, at the time and place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1), sent the forged mobile phone contract as if it were a document that was duly formed, to the employee of the business-related corporation, who was aware of the forgery, by facsimile.

B. (1) The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the defendant is also suspected of guilt even if there is no such evidence.