The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated that the defendant directly prepared an application for subscription, and since the victim engaged in the "salary business" at the time, there is no special reason to use three mobile phones when considering his/her occupational characteristics. The victim, after first opening the mobile phone and opening the mobile phone at the time of about six months, listens to the purport that there is a method to lower the fare between the defendant and the mobile phone, and is in a consistent assertion that he/she has been in charge to reflect or to cut off his/her identification card; and even according to the defendant's argument that he/she additionally opened two cell phoness for the purpose of discount, it is not confirmed which the victim has received any discount of the fee. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the victim arbitrarily prepared an application for subscription to the mobile phone at his/her discretion for the sake of his/her agency performance, etc. operated by the defendant, and that the victim was guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a dealer operating “C”, which is a mobile phone sales store located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

1) On December 30, 2016, the Defendant, without authority, stated in the instant indictment that “application for change of services” in the name of the mobile phone model 6S 64G, the ex-factory price of KRW 699,600, and the subsidy of KRW 47,000 when choosing subsidies for a mobile device, but the instant indictment is corrected as “application for change of services” in light of the evidence record.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

in the name of customer: D, date of birth: E, Handphone number: F, date of application: December 30, 2016; applicant: