Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Criminal facts

No person may intermediate a third party's communications using telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator, or provide it for a third party's communications.

1. On February 1, 2019, the Defendant, on February 1, 201, tried to listen to the statement that “a business operator may borrow a loan if a telephone machine is installed in a new store and it is transferred after it is installed in a new store,” and to respond to the statement.

Accordingly, the defendant applied for the opening of the telephone on B-line telephone, which is a telecommunications business operator on the same day, and installed and opened five telephone calls (C, D, E, F, G, representative number: H) provided on B-line telephone, to K of the Daejeon Pung-gu I building, and the defendant's operation in J, and transferred the above telephone to a person who was unaware of the name in front of the 21 broad name list box at 19:30 on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant provided telecommunications services provided by telecommunications business operators for another's communications.

2. On February 18, 2019, the Defendant continued to commit the crime, and continued to hear and respond to the statement that “on February 18, 2019, the Defendant should open a telephone any more than once in order to obtain a loan due to the occurrence of a problem.”

Accordingly, the defendant applied for the establishment of the excursion ship telephone on the same day, which is a telecommunications business operator, and the five telephone calls (M, N,O, P, and QO are erroneouss in the entry of O Q, and since the defendant's defense counsel pointed out these errors, they are corrected as it does not infringe on the defendant's and his defense counsel's right of defense. The representative number: R) was installed in Daejeon Pung-gu I building, and the K of the defendant's operation in J, and was opened to and opened to the above four-day mobile phone, at around 15:00 on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant is a telecommunications business operator.