The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From February 23, 2013 to June 22, 2014, Defendant A1 did not commit the same crime as indicated in the facts charged by opening a normally prepaid mobile phone from February 23, 2013 to June 22, 2014 among the crimes under Article 1. A of the facts charged.

B) Of the crimes under paragraph (a) of Article 3. of the facts charged, since it is a normal prepaid mobile phone as alleged in the attached Table 5 No. 1 to 362 among the crimes under paragraph (a), it does not constitute a violation of the Telecommunications Business Act;

3. Of the crimes listed in sub-paragraph (b), approximately 30 core chips listed in the annexed Table 6 shall be kept in custody for Y, which is the paper, Y. 7 cases were returned to the application for opening, one case was terminated later, and four cases overlap, and thus, the corresponding part does not constitute a violation of the Telecommunications Business Act.

2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B and C’s respective sentence (eight months of imprisonment: Defendant B and Defendant C’s imprisonment; ten months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts against Defendant A) According to the order Nos. 4, 8, 27, 31, 60, 89, 122, 196, 201, 207, 231, 248, 284, 289, 344, 35, 376, 377, 401, 402, 403, 404, 406 and 406 of each private document forgery, event of the above investigation document, violation of the Resident Registration Act, and evidence Nos. 5, 9, 29, 33, 62, 91, 124, 198, 203, 231, 250, 250, 3746, 3747, 306, and 40, 307, and 404 of A's testimony of evidence.