A. On September 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a request from B, who is in need of the “Stopphone” from a police officer at the beginning of the first week (hereinafter referred to as the “Stopphone”); and (b) contacted the said C to receive an unreficial introduction fee; and (c) sold 520,000 won pre-paid four prepaids, thereby arranging a contract on the provision of telecommunications services necessary for the use of the mobile devices, subject to the provision of funds.

B. On September 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D to the effect that “the request for a fluence to cause a fluence;” (b) contacted the said C to receive a fee for a fluence; and (c) sold 2.60,000 won of the price, thereby arranging a contract on the provision of telecommunications services necessary for the use of a mobile device, subject to the provision of funds.

2. Determination

A. Article 95-2 Subparag. 3 and Article 32-4 Subparag. 1 Subparag. 2 of the Telecommunications Business Act provide that “a person who solicits, mediates, mediates, or advertises a contract on the provision of telecommunications services necessary for the use of a mobile device on the condition of providing or lending funds” shall be punished.

B. The Defendant assisted C and D to sell a conviction in advance.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant committed the above intermediary act under the condition of providing or lending funds.

3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the defendant was absent on the sentencing date, the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2)