The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. No person who has a summary of a charge may intermediate another person's communications or provide it for a third person's communications using telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications business operator;

Nevertheless, around November 21, 2016, the Defendant had C open a cell phone (F indicated in the written indictment) in his/her name with the knowledge of using it as a large phone, and sold it in his/her own name after receiving KRW 50,000 in return.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion appears to have opened the E mobile phone by stealing the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not directly open the E mobile phone and sell it to C as in the facts charged.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant opened 4-5 mobile phones in his/her own name and transferred the chip to C, and the fact that the E mobile phone opened under the name of the Defendant was used for the intermediate trading fraud at the website of “G” is recognized, respectively.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by this court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, it cannot be deemed that the facts acknowledged earlier, the witness C’s legal statement and evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant sold to C, through opening the “E” mobile phone as indicated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) On November 1, 2018, C opened a 2-3 mobile phone in its name with the consent of the defendant, and the defendant applies for joining in the process.