Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of 7,000,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who performs the operation of prepaid phone opening in D'D' in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City(C).

At the above E office around June 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from an employee in charge of the name of the organization that distributes a telecommunications-based financial fraud (one-name “mull” (one-name “mull-phone”; hereinafter “mull-phone”); and (b) received a proposal from an employee in charge of the organization that distributes telecommunications-based financial fraud (one-name “mull-phone”; (c) and (d) sent the phone using Kwikset services through the phone name to the person providing the name of the phone; and (d) sent the phone name to Kwikset through Kwikset services; and (d) from July 10, 2018, from that time, the Defendant provided D E (the Defendant, G, and H business operator’s name) and 2130 mobile phones from “I” (the name of the Defendant and the telecommunications business operator’s name) and provided the phone name and the telecommunications business operator’s name and the other person’s share for the purpose of telecommunications services.

1. The Defendants’ co-offenders are those engaged in the prepaid phone opening at the “D” mobile branch located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Defendant

A, around January 23, 2018, at the above "D," the above "D" bank: (a) had the intention to arbitrarily stop the pre-paid phone in the name of J which he opened, and (b) had the Defendant B appear as J; (c) had the Defendant B suspended the pre-paid phone in the name of J; (d) around 16:47 of the same day, Defendant B called Defendant A to the "D" customer center as a cell phone used in the pre-paid opening; and (e) applied for the suspension of the pre-paid phone in the name of J to the customer center’s staff, and (e) had Defendant B suspended the pre-paid phone.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired to suspend the victim D's mobile communication service through a deceptive scheme.