Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who operates a mobile phone wholesale store (Celecommunication).

On May 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) opened a cell phone of 50,000 won (IMFI:F) in the name of friendly E in the C Communications operated by her 1st floor 20th floor below the building D on May 28, 2014; and (b) on June 25, 2014, the Defendant lost a cell phone of 5,550,000 won to G; (c) notwithstanding the absence of any fact that the cell phone was lost, the Defendant lost the cell phone to the KS Telecom.

On July 11, 2014, after falsely claiming insurance money, the victim's merts fire marine insurance (state) received approximately KRW 800,000 from the phone 5s mobile phone from the market price and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Reports on internal investigation (Attachment to the G suspect examination protocol - Copy of the suspect examination protocol);

1. Investigation report (report on the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure);

1. Application of the general terms and conditions of mobile phone insurance;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is that the Defendant only claimed insurance money as a result of his/her duties and did not have intention to commit fraud.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records and evidence of this case, namely, ① the time when the defendant opened the cell phone in the judgment, the time when the defendant sold the cell phone in the middle and high volume, and the time when the insurance money is claimed, ② the cell phone in the judgment, ③ the fact that the defendant received a new cell phone and then disposed of the cell phone in the judgment, was recorded in the memory of the fact that the cell phone in the judgment.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant did not take measures such as the refund of insurance money, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.