When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

No one may intermediate a third party's communications using telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator or provide such services for a third party's communications.

Nevertheless, on April 4, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from an unexploiting person who reported and contacted the Internet, and consented thereto; (b) sent the prepaid chip directly opened by the Defendant to the above unexpered person; (c) sent a photograph of the driver’s license indicating the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, etc. to the above unexpered person; and (d) sent the Defendant’s photograph of the driver’s license to the above unexp to the above unexpered person; and (c) made the Defendant open the prepaid chip under the name of the said unexp to the name of the Defendant; and (d) provided nine prepaid chip opened in the name of the said unexp to the name of the Defendant by telephone; and (e) provided the said unexp to the above unexpered person under the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant provided telecommunications services provided by telecommunications business operators for another's communications.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report of a police interrogation protocol on the defendant's statement T in court (the attachment of details of transactions to money received in return for sending a conviction, and the confirmation of the fact that the suspect is proceeding with T trial);

1. Article 97 subparagraph 7 of the Telecommunications Business Act and Article 30 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse consisting of nine core chips provided by the defendant to a person who has failed to disclose his/her name, and some of them appears to have been used for the crime of a outsourcing, on the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized his/her mistake and against himself/herself, and the three times of fines.