In addition, according to the evidence such as the victim E's statement and the statement of transactions submitted by G, the defendant seems to have opened a Handphone in the victim's name using a copy of the victim's identification card.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Around May 11, 2012, the Defendant stated that “D” in the Dong-gu Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Da14448, May 11, 2012, the Defendant borrowed four names from “D” to make one handphones available to the victim E. In order to prevent damage by paying for the device cost and communication cost.”

However, in fact, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the mobile phone price and communication cost to the victim by opening the Hand phone in the name of the victim, selling the Hand phone in return for an allowance, receiving the sales amount, and using it as living expenses.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and opening the Handphone from the victim, did not bear a total of KRW 1,494,240,000, which is the terminal price and communication cost, and acquired pecuniary profits equivalent to the same amount by having the victim bear it.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to view that the above facts charged was proven without any reasonable doubt that the defendant deceptioned E, and opened one handphone from E, thereby passing through the Defendant’s name.