The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, by deceiving the victim without the intention or ability to pay mobile phone usage fees, did not open the victim’s mobile phone under the name of the victim and did not gain any profit in connection with the instant case, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The gist of the facts charged is a person who worked at a mobile phone sales store.

On November 30, 2013, the Defendant contacted the victim E (the remaining and the age of 23) at the D office located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon on November 30, 2013, and changed the number of mobile phone 20,000, and pay the charges and the cost of equipment.

After three months of termination, the end of the contract is different from the test that makes it difficult to prevent width damage."

However, the fact is that the cellular phone is opened in the name of the victim.

There was no intention or ability to pay high-ranking fees and terminal payments.

As such, the Defendant, after having obtained consent from the injured party necessary for opening the cell phone, opened two cell phones in the name of the injured party, used them, and 2,524,140 won, such as the unpaid amount of the cell phone, etc., were claimed to the injured party, thereby gaining financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was working at the time of the instant case, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

D has entered into a consignment contract for business affairs

G was difficult for him to be responsible for the payment by embezzlement of the mobile phone, and there was no cell phone in order to minimize the damage caused by this, and the Defendant did not explain the above situation to the victim.