Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, as to the Defendants, each of the above two years from the date of this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who worked as Lbane E from January 15, 2004 to March 22, 2013, and Defendant B is a person who operated Lbane G agency from January 2012 to Daegu Jung-gu.

Defendant

A received information necessary for the identification card and the purchase of a mobile phone from family members and relatives who have no intention to use a mobile phone normally, and prepared a mobile phone service contract in their names, and the defendant B received it from A and submitted it to the ELS head office of the damaged company, and the defendant A acquired the opening fee, etc., and the defendant B conspiredd to acquire profits by selling the mobile phone as a medium phone.

From March 9, 2012 to March 31, 2012, the Defendants submitted 28 mobile phone entrance applications with 63 mobile phone entrance applications from the “G” agencies operated by Defendant B from March 9, 2012 to the headquarters of the victimized company as if they were to use the normally a mobile phone, and then acquired them by the victimized company the total amount of KRW 49,165,020, including the mobile phone total amount of KRW 28,911,00,000, and KRW 20,254,020, under the pretext of the opening fee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement and part of Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Each application form for admission (32-412, 679-683 pages of investigation records);

1. A detailed statement of transactions between G and A;

1. Opening commission and the remaining amount of the short-term part, the opening fee, and the short-term sale amount;

1. Defendant B asserted that there was no deception of the victimized company by using a dogbial dog. However, according to the witness I’s statement and the Defendant A’s statement, etc., Defendant B, an accomplice, by deceiving the victimized company as if the victimized company were to enter into a contract of mobile telephone service in collusion with the Defendant A in an ordinary manner, such as the facts stated in the judgment.