On May 9, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Jeonju District Court for fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 11, 2019.

On July 2018, the Defendant received a call from the person who was not the deceased in the name of the Defendant, and proposed that “100,000 won per unit of telephone opened through the opening of the telephone,” and prepared an application for subscription to the call sent by the person who was unable to receive his/her name at the mutual infinite office located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on August 2018, and sent it by facsimile to the Defendant’s name and let the person who was unable to use the above phone number.

Accordingly, the defendant provided telecommunications services provided by telecommunications business operators for another's communications.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Investigation report (re-verification of telephone numbers used for crime and request for provision of communication data);

1. Requests for provision of communications data;

1. Previouss before and after judgments: Criminal history records, written judgments, previous rulings, records of dispositions, results of confirmation, application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 97 of the relevant Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 97 and 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act on the Selection of Punishment, and Selection of Fines;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exempted Criminal Act (including a violation of the Telecommunications Act that allows the Defendant to use by opening 20 telephone numbers similar to the instant crime, which was pronounced in the final and conclusive judgment, and the crime of this case was committed by opening 1 telephone numbers. Considering the fact that the instant crime was committed by allowing the Defendant to use by opening 1 telephone numbers, it is deemed that the Defendant did not have been subject to more severe punishment even if she was tried together with the judgment in which the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the instant crime and the said crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive are exempted from punishment in consideration of equity and the same).