In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

The Defendants purchased smartphones from taxi engineers, along with C, D, and E, which are inter-Neline C, D, and E, and intended to divide these profits by disposing of them to F, G, etc.

On April 16, 2014 from around 00:30 to 01:50 on the same day with C, D, and E, the Defendants: (a) moved a vehicle to the center of a new bank located in Busan Metropolitan City 590-6, which is known as a place where a taxi engineer sells a large number of lost smartphones; (b) sent a signal to purchase a lost smartphone from each passenger's own smartphone and then directly ask passengers about the fact that the taxi driver's smartphone was stolen and embezzled; (c) Defendant B knowingly purchased the smartphone of 300,000 won from the victims who acquired and embezzled it; (d) the victim's smartphone of 100,000 won at the price of the smartphone of 100,000 won at the price of the victim's 300,000 won, the market price of the victim's smartphone of 100,000 won, the victim's price of the smartphone of 150,000 won.

Accordingly, the Defendants acquired stolen goods in collusion with C, D, and E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of E and C;

1. Each police statement concerning D, H, I, J, K, and L;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Relevant Articles 362 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and the choice of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Return;