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 purchase price, 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.

2. Major evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is the suspect interrogation protocol of the Defendant, suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution, investigation report (the investigative record No. 16, 63) etc.

However, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant is inadmissible, and it is not admissible as evidence because the defendant denies its content, and the above investigation report is without consent of the defendant, and it is not accepted by the original person or the author.

In addition, the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant against the defendant is not reliable in violation of the witness E's legal statement and investigation report (FF currency content report).

In addition, the accusation of E is the purport that the defendant opened a cell phone in the name of E without the consent of E, and E appears as a witness in the court and filed a complaint by considering that the defendant was open at the time of the complaint, and the defendant was informed later, and the contents of the complaint can be reversed and it is difficult to credibility.