The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding (facing of private documents, uttering of a falsified private document) that the Defendant prepared a new contract, etc. in the name of K, N, T, and V (hereinafter “the instant nominal persons”) necessary for opening a mobile phone is based on delegation by the said nominal persons, and thus, the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of a falsified private document is not established.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the case where several forged private documents are held in a lump sum constitutes a mutually competitive relationship between several crimes of uttering of a falsified document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4289No188, Sept. 7, 1956). Of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, the crime where the defendant uses a new service contract under the name of K, N, and V in the form of a single service contract under the name of K, N, and V, shall be deemed as a mutually concurrent crime committed crime.

However, the judgment of the court below is a substantive concurrent crime, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the relation of acceptance of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The term “the forgery of a document to determine the mistake of facts” refers to the preparation of a document in the name of another person by a person who has no authority to prepare the document, so if there was an explicit or implied consent or delegation of the nominal owner in preparing the private document, this cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of forging the private document (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do183, Feb. 24, 1998). However, even if there is delegation of the authority to prepare the document, if the delegated person prepares the document with the initial authority delegated, the crime of forging the private document is committed.