One year of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the defendant 1 and 2, and for each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the defendant 3, 4 and 5.

Punishment of the crime

On December 1, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution for the crime of embezzlement at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 1, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 9, 2016.

1. Around August 20, 2015, the Defendant forged a private document and the event of the above investigation document (2018 high group 392). On August 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated the personal information of E in each official column of the above site, such as entering “E” in the “D” column of “the name of customer applying for purchase of a service” in the “E” page using the test color pen; and (b) forged one copy of a new service contract under the name of E, a private document concerning rights and duties, for the purpose of exercising the signature of E, and exercised it by way of forging the forged new service contract, and transmitting it to the SK Telecom Co., Ltd. as if it was duly formed.

In addition, from around that time to August 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) forged 38 copies of a new service contract, which is a private document on rights and obligations, with the intent to exercise them as described in the list of crimes in attached Table 1. In addition, from around that time, the Defendant committed each event by sK Telecom Co., Ltd., with the aim of exercising them as indicated in the list of crimes; and (b) holding them by way

2. Fraud (2018 Highest 392) The Defendant submitted a false contract for services in the name of another person by submitting a forged mobile phone service contract to a communications company, as described in paragraph 1, and was intended to use the same in a way that disposes of it to a middle and high-ranking business entity with an personal liability, etc., and did not have an intent or ability to pay the price even if it was paid for the mobile phone, the Defendant was issued one of the mobile phone devices in the name of E, as described in paragraph 1 in the above D around August 20, 2015 (or a new contract for services in the name of E that was forged, as described in paragraph 1, and issued one of the mobile phone devices in the name of the damaged person (or an amount equivalent to KRW 789,800 at the market price).