Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On September 22, 2017, the Defendant stated that “A mobile phone has been used, which cannot be opened in the name of the victim B, who was the branch, due to traffic accidents.” The Defendant falsely stated that “A mobile phone will be changed in the name of B after three months after the opening of the main phone in the name of aner.”

However, the Defendant was unable to open a mobile phone more under the name of the Defendant due to the failure to pay the mobile phone fee previously used, and was in a state of bad credit without any particular occupation, and was in an economic difficult situation, such as the Defendant’s obligation to pay a total amount of 100 million won or more, and thus, even if he opened a mobile phone in the name of the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to change the mobile phone name after three months.

As above, the Defendant deceiving the said victim and let the said victim open the cell phone (E) in the “D” mobile phone agency located in the window C of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, around 19:00 on September 22, 2017, and received one cell phone from the said victim and used it from around that time to September 2018. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,220,300 in total, including the installment cost of the said cell phone and the telecommunications fee imposed on the said victim.

Accordingly, the defendant had acquired economic benefits by deceiving the above victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Summary of request;

and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the defendant, and the defendant is identical to the defendant.