Defendant

C Imprisonment for three years, each of the defendants A, B, and defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] Defendant A case: The judgment of obstructing the exercise of the right by sentence on May 2, 2016: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and two years of suspended execution: Defendant B-Defendant B who was finally declared on May 10, 2016 and the judgment of fraud, etc. sentenced on July 17, 2012: The Seoul Southern District Court: the lapse of eight months: the termination of the sentence of the female prison on January 20, 2013 - the judgment of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Many player) sentenced on May 18, 2017: the lapse of two years: Defendant C who was finally declared on May 26, 2017: the imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, etc. sentenced on July 17, 2013; the end of one year and six years: July 17, 2014 [Defendant C] Defendant 1 and the end of the sentence of imprisonment with prison.

1. On October 2015, Defendant B violated the Telecommunications Business Act: (a) introduced O or P, which requires N to take a loan from an unspecified place; (b) around that time, the introduction was made to Defendant A; (c) Defendant A again established a floating corporation, and was in the Incheon area where he received a loan after making a false registration as an employee.

D and C introduced them to D and C.

No one shall recommend, arrange, or mediate a contract for the provision of telecommunications services necessary for the use of a mobile communications terminal device, on condition that funds are provided or lent.

Defendant

A listened to the fact that the O or P mobile phone in the above D is necessary, and delivered it to Defendant B. Accordingly, the Defendants recommended that O and P mobile phone in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government heading around November 2015 should be used to take loans to them and obtained their consent. At that time, Defendant B hadO open a total of three mobile phones by allowing them to open a mobile phone and open a mobile phone in the nearby mobile phone store, and caused P to open a total of four mobile phone, and then had P open a mobile phone.