logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.09.10 2014도12361
전기통신사업법위반
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term "telecommunications" in Article 2 of the Telecommunications Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") means transmission or reception of codes, words, sounds, or images by wire, wireless, optical, or other electronic means ( Subparagraph 1); the term "telecommunications facilities" means machinery, apparatus, lines, or other facilities necessary for telecommunications for telecommunications ( Subparagraph 2); the term "telecommunications services" means mediating another's communications through telecommunications facilities and equipment or providing telecommunications facilities for another's communications ( Subparagraph 6); and the term "user" means a person who has entered into a contract for the use of telecommunications services with a telecommunications business operator to receive telecommunications services.

(9) Article 30 of the Act provides that no one shall intermediate another's communications or provide it for another's communications using the telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator, except for the cases where a user allows a third party to use it to the extent that it has not been repeatedly used (Article 4). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the act of a user, who has entered into a contract for the use of telecommunications services with a telecommunications business operator, transfers to a third party the conviction where the user's identity information, etc. is stored on the mobile phone terminal purchased in advance by the user who has entered into the contract with the telecommunications business operator, and ultimately causes a third party to use it constitutes a case where a telecommunications

2.(a)

The summary of each of the facts charged against the Defendants (excluding the acquittal portion) is as follows: (a) the Defendant opened in its name a mobile phone-based subscriber recognition raft (USIM, hereinafter referred to as the “SIM”) and sells it to customers by cutting the mind on the public cell phone purchased in advance.

arrow