A. Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act provides that “No person may intermediate another person’s communications or provide it for another person’s communications by using telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator.”

Nevertheless, it should be deemed that fraud is established, in collusion with the sponsor and nominal F, etc., who is a property by deceiving the principal of the nominal owner as if he/she were using the conviction.

In the case of prepaid review, even if there is no property damage of the telecommunications company, fraud is sufficient to acquire property or property benefits, and it does not require property damage. Therefore, fraud is established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. On February 2, 2018, the distributor of the “E”, called the summary of the facts charged, came to know to the F, G, and H by opening the cell phone under his/her name to pay the money in return for taking over his/her conviction, and by deceiving the telecommunications company as if the F, etc. would normally use the phone in the name of F, etc. without transferring the phone to another, and then by deceiving the telecommunications company as if the F, etc. would normally use the phone in the name of F, etc., and by obtaining three copies of the sum of the convictions opened in the name of F, (I), (J), and (K) opened in the name of H.

The Defendant, around March 7, 2018, sent to Kwikset service article, even though he knew of the fact that it was stolen by deceiving and being delivered by the telecommunications company, three in-depths, which had opened in front of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L, by the aforementioned method.