Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Seized evidence as referred to in subparagraphs 1, 3 through 13 shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

1. The Defendant: (a) received USIM from a third person in accordance with the direction of the person who was unable to obtain the name (hereinafter “B”); and (b) served as a person who inserted it in VoIP GTEWY into the telecommunications equipment to make the phone number most accessible to the domestic mobile phone numbers from a foreign country; (c) and (d) the nameless person is an organization responsible for committing a phishing fraud by using the above USIM and telecommunications equipment in a foreign country.

On November 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) conspireds with, in sequence, the victims with the name in order to divide the amount of money obtained by defrauding the money by deceiving the money to the investigative agency, such as the prosecution, by deceiving the victims by misrepresenting the money; and (b) provided the Defendant with communication equipment such as VoIP GTEWA and E, which had been transmitted through Kwikset services with the above name in the Defendant’s residence located in the Gyeonggi-gu Office C building D, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, with the order of the above inward box; and (c) inserted the USIM connected with the number of the “F” into VoIP GTEWAY, and provided it with the number of the above in order to designate the number of the Internet and use the domestic mobile communications network.

At around 14:10 on the same day, the name-based person stated to the effect that “E,” “F,” which was received from the Defendant, calls from the victim G in the above number, and “I will return after confirmation to the Financial Supervisory Service,” stating that “I will return if I would like to confirm if I would return to the Financial Supervisory Service the amount deposited. I would have opened a substitute passbook in the name of the accused and used it for fraud, and would have to investigate whether or not the perpetrator was the victim or the victim was the victim.”

However, in fact, the name-oriented person was not the investigator of the prosecutor's office or the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, and there was no fact that the passbook was opened in the victim's name and was used for the crime of fraud.