However, the defendant only received two copies from the above F, and even if he received an additional opening from the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the terminal price.

Nevertheless, on June 12, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was delivered one cell phone of gallon lusium 699,600 won at the market price to the victim.

2. The Defendant, who was requested from G, the F’s partner, to open three cell phones, and the two of them was cut off only the core chip to G and disposed of the mobile phone machine in a different place. The Defendant asserted that G was charged with the instant one cell phone, and that he did not deceiving the victim.

3. Determination

A. The protocol of interrogation of the police officer against the defendant with no admissibility of evidence can not be used as evidence since the defendant denies its content in this court.

Of the F’s legal statement, G’s previous statements are inadmissible as long as G was present and testified in this court as a witness.

B. The summary of the instant facts charged is that the Defendant, despite being requested by F to open two cell phones from F, by deceiving the victim D as if he was requested by F to do so. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in this court, the instant crime is so confluence that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge.