beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A, B, and C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000, and Defendant D shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,00.
Reasons
1. The act of opening a mobile phone for the purpose of receiving rebates from a mobile carrier with the intent to receive the rebates constitutes a fraud crime, and the mobile phone opened through the same method constitutes a stolen crime.
Inasmuch as the term “boxphone” like the instant case is highly likely to be a stolen, the purchaser has a duty of care to verify whether the subscription to the mobile communications service is terminated.
However, the Defendants purchased the cell phone of this case without any confirmation with knowledge that the cell phone of this case is highly likely to work as a stolen.
Therefore, although the court below found that the defendants were negligent in performing their duty of care as a person engaged in the business of purchasing heavy cell phones, the court below found the defendants not guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts.
2. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the purport that the Defendants purchased a mobile phone from the police to the court, and the mobile phone sales store or agency consistently stated to the effect that they sold the mobile phone after opening the aforementioned mobile phone to receive rebates based on the actual results of opening the mobile phone from the mobile network operators, and it is difficult for the mobile phone sales store or agency to conclude that the mobile phone sales store or agency opened the mobile phone to receive rebates from the mobile network operators constitutes fraud or that it constitutes part of the crime of fraud. The Defendants ask the police to report whether the aforementioned mobile phone sales store or agent was lost or stolen when purchasing the mobile phone from the aforementioned mobile phone sales store or agent to this court. The Defendants also confirmed that the PEI number, which is unique identification number of each mobile phone, was entered or lost or that the mobile phone sales store or agency was not a theft.