However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendants are the defendants.

From February 2010 to April 201, Defendants operated a mobile phone sales agency with the trade name of “E” on the first floor of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu D building.

1. Where a sales agency of the fraud mobile phone related to double opening fees returns to consumers because it is inferior to the mobile phone, an agency is replaced with the same model of the agency within 14 days from the reunification, and if an agent is sent the returned mobile phone to the victim corporation case (hereinafter “victim corporation”), the victim company shall send the returned mobile phone with the same model of the mobile phone as the returned mobile phone within 7 days. In such a case, the victim company paid the opening fees only for the original mobile phone.

However, the Defendants conspired to receive double opening fees for returned mobile phones. Accordingly, around March 6, 2010, the Defendants received a serial number G mobile phone opening fee of 120,000 won from the victim company to the victim company even though they received the opening fee of 120,000 won from the above agency using the phone number F, the Defendants, on the ground of defective goods, replaced the serial number H’s cell phone to the victim company, and sent the above serial number G’s cell phone opening fee to the victim company. On March 16, 2010, the Defendants collected the opening fee of 120,000 won from the employee in charge of the victim company, and acquired it from the victim company’s employees from March 16, 2010 to March 28, 2011, and acquired the total amount of KRW 370,300,000 from the victim company under the name of 54 times.

2. The Defendants’ frauds related to the opening fee are recruited to receive opening fees by falsely raising the performance, and accordingly, the fact is serial number.