Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. In light of the fact that the defendant tried to dispose of the mobile phone that he acquired as a result of the instant crime, the quality of the crime cannot be deemed to be somewhat less.

However, the Defendant stated in the trial that “Internet advertising was made with a person who intends to purchase a mobile phone after making a report on a mobile phone, and then sold a mobile phone at the scene, and the police was under control at the site,” and also stated in the written extradition of this case that “the Defendant was in face-to-faced with the suspect by the Information Institute.” Thus, we agree with the Defendant’s change that the Defendant did not acquire it for the purpose of disposing of a mobile phone in a planned way from the beginning, and that the damaged goods were recovered and the Defendant was chronic renal patients who received three-time slot treatment a week, and was in an economic poor condition, etc., the lower court’s punishment seems somewhat unreasonable, in full view of the following conditions, including the circumstances, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;