All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendants were aware of and against their mistake, the circumstances leading up to the commencement of the instant crime upon the F’s solicitation, and the role of the Defendants in charge of the instant crime, etc., the degree of their involvement is significant.

The profit acquired by the crime is not significant compared to the total scale of the crime.

It appears that there is no criminal power, and that it is an initial offender who has no criminal power, etc. is favorable to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants shared their respective roles with other accomplices and forged a mobile phone contract in the name of a foreigner and exercised it to a telecommunications business operator. Defendant A and Defendant B sold to a person in unsound name by opening the so-called 750 so-called 'Mapo-called 'Mapo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-S

As such, in full view of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the strict prohibition under the Telecommunications Business Act, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, family environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.