The judgment below

We reverse the violation part of Telecommunications Business Act.

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. The progress of the lawsuit of this case and the scope of the judgment of this court

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to two years and six months of imprisonment.

Accordingly, the Defendant filed an appeal against the whole judgment of the lower court on the ground of misapprehending the legal principles on violation of Telecommunications Business Act and unreasonable sentencing.

The judgment of the court prior to remand reversed the judgment of the court below against the defendant, and judged the defendant not guilty of violating the Telecommunications Business Act among the facts charged as guilty at the court below, and sentenced the new punishment to two years and six months in prison as the court below

A prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal part of the judgment of the party before remanding the case on the grounds of misapprehension of legal principles.

The Supreme Court rendered that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the portion of acquittal before remand, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and reversed and remanded it to this court.

B. Since the conviction portion of the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the scope of the trial by this court is separately determined by the defendant and the prosecutor, each of the above parts was excluded from the scope of the trial by the party.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). Accordingly, the subject of adjudication by this court after remand is limited to the part of the judgment below, which is the reversed part, that is, the violation of the Telecommunications Business Act.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant is that the Defendant purchased and used a core chips, other than mobile phones under the name of another person, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated Article 32-4 (1

3. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced two years and six months to be guilty, and the lower court was acquitted of the violation of the Telecommunications Business Act among the lower judgment.