The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant's act of opening a cell phone and transferring it to another person, as stated in the facts charged, violates Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act, the lower court acquitted the defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On September 20, 201, the Defendant received a proposal to offer KRW 100,00,000 for each of the instant facts charged to Btel located at Seocho-si around September 20, 201, and provided telecommunications services provided by the telecommunications business operator for another’s communications by either receiving and delivering a mobile phone from an unqualified person, and notifying his/her name defecter of his/her resident registration number, Samsung Card number, etc. necessary for the opening of the phone, and allowing the Defendant to open and deliver a mobile phone under his/her name.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant transferred the mobile phone opened to the Defendant’s name as stated in the facts charged. However, the legislative purpose of Article 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act is to prohibit the operation of a private telephone station, etc., which is originally prohibited by the operation of the telecommunications service provider, and it does not mean that the mobile phone itself cannot be seen as “telecommunications services provided by the telecommunications business operator,” and thus, it cannot be interpreted as “the telecommunications service provided by the telecommunications business operator for another’s communications purpose.” The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the amendment bill of the Telecommunications Business Act for restricting the 18th National Assembly for the 18th National Assembly for the Telecommunications Business Act was not passed, and the act as described in the facts charged by the Defendant did not constitute a crime under Article 97 subparag. 7 or 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act.

(c).