If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On or after the end of June 2011, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would not open a mobile phone in the name of B because of the unpaid mobile phone charges, so he would not open a mobile phone in the name of B, so he would pay a mobile phone fee well, and if he comes to he, he would count and adjust up up up up up up up to a clean mobile phone use fee and terminal value even if he comes to fall into his own position.”

However, the fact did not have the intention or ability to pay the cost of the mobile phone use and the cost of the mobile phone even if the cell phone is opened and used in the name of the victim.

At the end of June, 2011, the victim had only one gallon 2 mobile phone (E) in the name of the victim in the D agency located near the Incheon State Station, and the principal owner of the defendant, from November 201 to January 2012, the defendant exempted the payment of the above mobile phone amounting to KRW 1,681,980 and KRW 2,684,390 in total by the method of not paying the user fee of KRW 1,681,980 and the terminal price of KRW 1,02,410.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired property benefits equivalent to the above amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the third trial date);

1. Part C of the protocol of interrogation of the police of the accused (in the capacity of the complainant)

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on charges claim receipt;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;