Of those, the conviction against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

(2).

A. The lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of the facts, as to the fraud caused by the defraudation of each mobile phone against the Defendants, since the telecommunications company already supplied the device to the agency before entering into an individual subscription contract between the telecommunications company and the mobile phone subscribers and acquired only the claim for the mobile phone payment after transferring ownership, the telecommunications company, which caused the damage to the victim, was subject to deception of the user’s ability to pay the telecommunications fee and the terminal payment, thereby disposing of the ownership of the mobile phone.

The court rendered a judgment of innocence on the grounds that it could not be seen.

However, as in the instant case, the fact that an entrusted agency in collusion with a sales store, etc. attracting subscribers to a small amount of loan, prepared an application for subscription, and immediately dispose of the mobile phone terminal to a third party, such as a smuggling exporter, etc., without delivering the mobile phone to the purchaser if subscription is made. In other words, if the damaged party knew that the mobile phone terminal is sold regardless of the use of telecommunications services, the victim would not sell and deliver the terminal in accordance with the consignment agency contract. As such, in full view of the whole, the relationship between the “act of submitting an application for subscription as if he did not make an application for a normal mobile phone subscription,” and the “act of delivering an application for subscription as if he did not pay the mobile phone price and the telecommunications fee,” can be acknowledged.

In addition, the court below found Defendant B guilty on the fraud by defraudation of sales incentives, and found Defendant B's involvement in the act of defraudation of sales incentives through an agency, sales store, sales store, and the part concerning the outlines led by Defendant B.