The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the owner and employee of the cell phone store as the victim opened the cell phone in the name of E without permission of E even though the defendant had been well aware that he/she applied for membership in the name of E.

In other words, it cannot be said that an employee who is not aware of the fact of the above Article has forged the E application for joining the name of E, or has acquired the mobile phone by exercising it against the employee or the owner of the mobile phone store and deceiving him.

B. When considering the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (fine 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of aiding private documents, the defendant's assertion itself was not delegated with the authority to open a mobile phone by E or her husband, and even though the owner of the mobile phone store knew of such circumstances, the defendant had been trying to enter the mobile phone under E. Thus, regardless of whether the owner of the mobile phone store knew of such circumstances, the defendant's charge of forging a copy of the application for joining the mobile phone under the name of E is sufficiently recognized. According to the court below and the court below duly adopted and examined evidence, the defendant was requested by C to open a mobile phone at around May 2013, after receiving a request from C to request the opening of the mobile phone, and was in possession of the welfare card for the disabled of D's wife, despite the fact that the defendant did not have been permitted by E with the purpose of exercising the welfare card for a private person with disabilities from the mobile phone store of this case, the owner of the mobile phone store presented the personal information of the user's personal information in the form of E, stating the name and right and duty of E.