beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not forge or use an application for the purchase of a mobile phone in the E name as stated in the facts charged, and there is no fact that he/she acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above mobile phone use price.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant obtained the consent from E on the opening and use of a mobile phone in the name of Lseller Co., Ltd., his representative from E to the trial of the party at the investigation agency, and received a certificate of personal seal impression and a copy of resident registration, and then delivered the certificate to the J selling the mobile phone. Since the J prepares an application for the mobile phone subscription in the name of E and opens the mobile phone, it is argued that the crime of document fabrication and fraud
Therefore, the issue of this case is whether E has consented to the defendant's application for mobile phone subscription as stated in the facts charged as above.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s evidence duly adopted and examined: (i) the Defendant transferred his/her L retail Co., Ltd. to E on May 24, 201, and registered his/her business under the name of E; (ii) the Defendant: (a) even after transferring the aforementioned liquor company, he/she had been able to operate the said liquor company; (b) on October 21, 201, the two application form for membership of El U mobile phone (D, I) in the name of E was prepared; and (c) around that time, the said application form was submitted to the mobile phone agency and opened the mobile phone; (c) the Defendant stated that he/she obtained the certificate of personal seal impression and a certified copy of resident registration in the name of E to join the mobile phone from E, and (d) the Defendant issued it to theJ engaging in the mobile phone sales business; and (c) the Defendant consistently made the application from the investigative agency to the court of the lower judgment.