All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Facts charged 3.B.

Since the defendant forged a new contract for mobile phone service in the name of E and a written confirmation of admission and work process, it is reasonable to see that the crime of forging private documents is established, and that the crime of forging private signature is absorption.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of the crime of forging a private signature as to this part of the facts charged is illegal.

B) As to the facts charged 5.B.2, since the Defendant forged and used the application for loan transaction under the name of E, the crime of forging a private signature and the crime of uttering of a false investigation signature is not established separately by absorbing it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that held that the crime of forging a private signature and the uttering of a private signature for this part of the facts charged is unlawful.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The prosecutor (the crime of forging false facts or misunderstanding of legal principles leads to the number of pages at the time of completion of production with the person, and thus, forgery of a person, other than the seal imprinted and sealed, is not incorporated into the crime of forging documents, but constitutes a separate crime of forging documents.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted a person as to the charge of forging documents by determining that the act of forging documents was absorbed, and thereby acquitted a private person or a false investigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant opened a mobile phone at the SK Telecom I agency located in J on October 16, 2013 and the agent employee entered into a mobile phone service new contract with the Defendant.