A. According to Defendant C, D’s statement, victim’s statement, etc., Defendant A, and B’s N, V, P, and R’s Internet website (hereinafter “instant site”) at the time of the instant crime was designed to enable users to enter resident registration numbers, mobile phone numbers, and certification numbers as if they were to join the instant site, and to have most people formally agree without being read, and to have them enjoy “contestable” without any indication or guidance related to “settlement.”

Defendant

The screen of membership and small settlement of the site of this case submitted by the defense counsel A and B as evidence cannot be viewed as the screen of the site of this case at the time of committing the crime of this case on November 13, 2013, which was after the commencement of the investigation of this case. The text message of the certification number submitted by the said defense counsel is not a text message received by the victims at the time of committing the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by finding facts on the screen of the website member and the small amount of settlement center on the basis of the evidence that the Defendant operated and changed on the part of the Defendant.

B. Even if Defendant A and B operated the instant site and notified the users of a part of the advertisement terms, such as “unfly downloadd Round at the time of joining the instant site,” Defendant A and B inserted the advertisement terms such as “unfly downloadd Round” in the advertisement, and designed the screen to make it impossible to become a member of the account impossible if he/she does not agree to the small-sum settlement without separating the membership membership procedure from the membership settlement procedure. The terms and conditions related to automatic settlement are either impossible for the users to confirm at one time, and are written rarely at a location that can confirm the screen.