On June 12, 2015, the Defendant heard the phrase “to withdraw money deposited in the account under the name of the party and pay a fee equivalent to 3% of the withdrawal from the face amount by telephone from the person who was in the name of the party.” On June 12, 2015, the Defendant accepted the proposal of a person under the name of the party who was aware that the said person would use the account under the name of the defendant for the purpose of drinking. On June 13, 2015, the Defendant informed the account number of the bank account under the name of the Defendant by telephone to the person under the name of the party.

On the other hand, the employee of the Ssing Tishing service calls from the victim D on June 12, 2015 and calls from the victim D on June 12, 2015 to make loans at the interest rate of 3.5% from KRW 30 million to KRW 50 million.

On the other hand, as a credit inquiry is required, the credit number, identification number, identification number, identification number, identification number, identification number, identification number of the victim's name bank account in the victim's name was identified from the victim, and the OTP number was identified from the victim. On June 15, 2015, around 07, the victim transferred KRW 25,40,000 from the Daegu Bank account in the victim's name to the Defendant's name bank account (C).

Therefore, according to the order of the above person without the name of the defendant, the defendant shall withdraw the above KRW 25.4 million from the national bank located at the time of the same day in cash, and shall not send 24 million to the non-person who sent the above person without the name, and the remaining KRW 1.4 million to the non-person who attempted to receive the payment for cash withdrawal, but it was not the wind that the above account in the name of the defendant was suspended.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with the name-free boxes, entered information without authority into a computer or any other information processing device, thereby obtaining 25,40,000 won from the damaged person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. D. D.