However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[2014 Highest 835] On August 22, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, stating, “On-the-spot charge is to be paid instead of the face-to-face charge by opening a cell phone” to the victim D at the Defendant’s residence located in Pakistan-si.”

However, even if the defendant opens a mobile phone in the name of the victim D, he only intended to sell it and use it as living expenses, etc., and did not have the intention or ability to pay the mobile phone fees instead.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim D and had the victim D to open the “E” mobile phone in its name; (b) sold it to the victim without his/her name; and (c) had the victim F, G, and D acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 1,817,410 of the mobile phone fee from the victim’s name by selling it to the victim with his/her name; and (d) from that time to August 5, 2013, the Defendant had the victim F, G, and D open seven cellular phone numbers to the victim with his/her name in the same manner as the list of crimes in the attached Form; and (e) sold it to the victim without his/her name and had the victim obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 10,132,615 of

[2014 Highest 1125] On November 12, 2013, the Defendant posted an advertisement stating that “a sales of a gallonian 3 mobile phone on 7.40,000 won” on the Internet NAVL, and the victim H, who reported this advertisement, made a false statement to the effect that “A gallon 3 mobile phone is sold to 7.20,000 won after the reduction of 20,000 won when a direct transaction is made. It is a mobile phone in the inside name, and there is no problem in using theme for not reporting theft during the period of compulsory use (three months), and can be registered in the victim’s name after the termination of the period of compulsory use.”

However, on October 2013, the defendant borrowed the name from I, a son, on the condition that the defendant bears the use fee, and opened the cell phone from October 2013.