The Defendant and B, "2012 Highest 6269", when one-line mobile phone agents enter into a mobile phone service contract with customers who want to change the mobile phone or equipment due to the excessive competition with the mobile phone subscribers, each mobile network provider knew that there is a practice that benefits the agency from a considerable amount of subsidy and sales encouragement allowance to the agency, abused it to access the mobile network provider to the mobile network operator who is bound to be sensitive to the subscriber's attraction records, and then, by deceiving the applicants to change the equipment only to receive the prescribed fee and by deceiving them as if they would directly recruit the applicants.

B On May 2012, 2012, the victim E, who operates D in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, concluded a contract with the victim for soliciting the customers of mobile communication service consignment with the victim, stating that “Around the end of May 2012, the victim E, who is aware that there are many persons to change the mobile phone in the surrounding area, will raise the performance by collecting a large number of subscribers and allowing them to change the number or equipment through an agency that is operated by the party, who is entitled to 30-4 million won per customer, deducted a subsidy of 50,000 won per week from the introduction fee to the customer.”

The Defendant and B, from July 20, 2012, recommended a model of B, F, etc., the model of B, a model of B, which is a model for which subsidies have been granted, from that time to July 20, 2012, and led to the transfer of numbers or change of devices to such model, 30,000 won per month during the agreed period, on the ground that they would be changed without any condition if the galtho S3 is withdrawn later, and then, received 24,895,000 won in total from the subsidies granted to them to the Agricultural Cooperative (G) account in B, by introducing them to the victims.

However, the defendant and B are customers from the victim.