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

The defendant, in collusion with his name in order to offer an Internet to his name in a place where the defendant establishes an Internet without permission from another person, and the name inferer has applied for Internet service in his name and has received profits from installing it at a place where the defendant provided.

1. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant joined the event, such as the electronic records, etc., in collusion with the influence of the name, and entered the personal information of B in a computer system without the consent of B, the name influenceist, and then entered the name in B via a cellular phone (C) opened in advance under B’s name, which had been opened in the name of B, into the Internet combined goods (B Internet No. 206, 2305, e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., the name influence, etc.).

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with a person who is not his name, forged a file of application for membership as an electronic record of B related to rights and duties for the purpose of making administrative affairs in collusion with the person who is not his/her name, and sent it to the SKB World receipt employee who is not aware of such fact.

2. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) in collusion with an influenceist in name; (b) used a written application for the purchase of D apartment units 206 dong 2305 and paragraph (1) of the same Article; and (c) used the written application for the purchase of B apartment units 206 dong 205 and paragraph (1) to set up the Internet on the site to the Dozad

However, the defendant et al. did not have any intention or ability to pay the actual user fee even if he joined and used the Internet-combined product on the Doster.

The Defendant, in collusion with a person in unsound name, by deceiving the victim SK Telecom, received Internet combined goods services from the victim, but did not pay a total of KRW 1,586,340 from around that time until February 2015, and acquired financial benefits equivalent to the above amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. The police of the defendant.