The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

A. The general distribution structure of mobile devices at the time of the instant case (Supreme Court Decision 20132.2.12. 23. 2015; Supreme Court Decision 20132. 19615 Decided December 23, 2015; F, “interregulation under Article 54 of the Telecommunications Business Act - - centered on the regulation of the Korea Communications Commission and the Fair Trade Commission on the long-term subsidy,” “Economic Regulation and the Public Interest Industry Center of Seoul, May 2012; G; “Research as to whether the provision of additional subsidy to the user of the mobile service and the purchaser of the mobile device is included in the value-added standard of the subsidy paid to the mobile device;” “Research as to whether the provision of additional subsidy to the mobile device is included in the value-added standard; and the provision of the mobile device to the mobile operator’s agent and agent’s service on behalf of the mobile operator (see, e.g., “the mobile operator”).

Dor agency shall attract subscribers, and sell terminal devices to subscribers, by means of sales stores directly or through the sales contract, and shall enter into a mobile communications service contract with the subscriber.

An agency shall receive fees from mobile communication agencies in return for handling duties, such as attracting subscribers, concluding a service contract for mobile communications, etc. without leaving profits through the sale of short-term horses.

Fees shall be paid per unit in the event of the opening of the insured, and shall be the case in which the number of the pre-determined target openings has been achieved.