When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

[Criminal Power] On September 5, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Busan District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Jinju Prison on February 28, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

No one may intermediate a third party's communications using telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator or provide such services for a third party's communications.

Nevertheless, on August 5, 2019, the Defendant applied for membership by accessing the C website at the request of B, which is the request of B, to allow the opening and use of the pre-paid, and by opening one pre-paid mobile phone (D) in the name of the Defendant to B, the Defendant used telecommunications services provided by the telecommunications business operator to intermediate another’s communications or provide it for another’s communications.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination reports (request for provision of communication data- contact address of a suspect) on the accused's legal statement in each criminal investigation (request for provision of communication data) and withdrawal of a telephone record, reply for confirmation of a radio operator

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of the results of criminal and investigation experience inquiry (A), investigation report (Cumulative offense and confirmation of facts during trial);

1. Article 97 of the relevant Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 97 and 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act on the Selection of Punishment, and Selection of Fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] 50,000 won to 50,000 won [the decision of sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] 2,00,000 won Defendant provided it to other persons by opening a prepaid phone. Accordingly, this case’s prepaid phone was used as a means of the crime of Bophishing, and even if this case’s prepaid phone was already opened twice to B, it was again heard only upon B’s request and opened a prepaid phone.

However, the defendant does not open the prepaid phone for the purpose of profit-making, but simply at the request of the branch.