The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B.

The main points of the grounds for appeal are that the sentence imposed by Defendant A (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is nothing more than simply a mere entrustment of custody of a device to an agency by a victim's mobile communication company for the facilitation of sale, and it does not constitute a disposal act, since ownership is not transferred ultimately.

After the victim's mobile radio operator delivered a short term, it shall be deemed that the act of obtaining the application for membership through an agency is a single disposal act, and only when the above act is completed, it shall be deemed that the disposal act is completed.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the relation between deception and the dispositive act, and thereby acquitted the Defendants, even though the Defendants’ submission of an application for subscription as if they were to pay the mobile phone price and the communication fee and the delivery of the mobile phone, and thus, recognized the fraud caused by deception of the mobile phone.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (the 2 years of imprisonment, the 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, and the 2 years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

The main point of this part of the facts charged as to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is Defendant A and B’s conspiracy fraud (defination of mobile phones) and many unspecified persons who reported the advertisement, etc. conducted by the above Defendants, without any force or credit, have no intention or ability to pay telecommunications service charges, such as the terminal price or mobile payment, even if they open a mobile phone from the beginning. Furthermore, the above Defendants and P, etc. were well aware of such circumstances.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants, P, C, and D are able to open a cell phone according to their respective roles and then dispose of the terminal.