Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment of three years, Defendant C's imprisonment of two years and six months, and Defendant D.

(b) there was no intention or ability to open a mobile phone;

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, acquired three mobile phones from the victim on the same day, two mobile phones around the 12th of the same month, and six mobile phones around the 13th of the same month, respectively, and acquired 11,184,80 won in total as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

"2017 Highest 2373" [Defendant B]

1. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around March 29, 2016, at a Handphone sales store where the Defendant in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City was working as a sales employee; (b) obtained a promise from CY to open a cell phone, and made it available to that person’s personal information roll; and (c) used it to open a handphone in the name of CY without obtaining the consent of CY.

On March 29, 2016, at the above Handphone sales store, the Defendant opened a Handphone 6 Handphone, and signed the customer information column in the customer information column in the site where the Defendant applied for this mobile subscription “CY, CZ, DA, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BN*****,” and in the column for the applicant/applicant, after entering each of the names of “CY” in the cY’s name.

As a result, the Defendant, without authority, forged a copy of the le mobile subscription application in the name of CY, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.

2. The Defendant at the time, place, etc. mentioned in paragraph (1) above, issued an application for lele mobile admission in the name of Y, which was forged as above, to an employee in the name of the KT Co., Ltd. who is aware of such forgery and exercised the said application as if they were duly formed.

3. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1 above, opened the mobile phone owned by KT in the name of KT by using the forged application form, even though he had sold the phone at a different location at his own discretion and did not have the intent or ability to pay the agreed fee and the cost of equipment normally.