If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

[Criminal Power] On June 26, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 4, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Joint criminal conduct between the defendant and B;

A. On December 21, 2017, around 16:40 on December 21, 2017, the Defendant and B decided that the victim C who reported and contacted the loan advertisement in the Facebook, prior to the exit 8 in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, would give KRW 1,00,000 per smartphone (1,000,000 per smartphone), who opened smartphone in the name of the victim.

However, the Defendants did not intend to pay money to the victim even if they opened smartphones in the name of the victim.

Therefore, the Defendant and B, as seen above, had the victim enticed, and had the victim issued one opphone X-ray equivalent to KRW 1,500,000,000 to the market price opened in the name of the victim at the smartphone store near the Suwon-si Station in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, at around 19:30 on the same day.

(b) No person who violates the Telecommunications Business Act shall solicit, arrange, mediate, or advertise any contract for the provision of telecommunications services necessary for the use of a mobile communications terminal on condition of providing or lending funds.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and B provided good offices to open a mobile phone in the name of C with the intent to provide funds to C, such as the above paragraph (a).

2. On December 22, 2017, the Defendant, at around 09:00, moved the name of the victim C to a store near the Suwon Station where it is impossible to identify the name of the victim C again or the name of the transfer-dong of the Suwon Station, thereby deceiving the victim in the same way as the above paragraph (a) and subsequently, attempted to add one opon X-ray to a store where it is difficult to identify, but the Defendant did not go through the victim’s name due to quantitative restrictions, but did not go through the victim’s name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of a police suspect with regard to the accused and B;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Police in relation to C.