From July 2012 to November 2012, the Defendant purchased a large quantity of stolen or lost mobile phone equipment from around 10,000 to around 26,00,000 from the said F to the same day, the Defendant purchased approximately 80,000 mobile phone equipment used to purchase approximately 80,00 mobile phone equipment used to purchase approximately 26,00,00 from the said F, used to purchase approximately 10,000 mobile phone equipment used to be stolen or lost from the taxi platform near the Dong-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the Dong area, through G, a subordinate goods business entity, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually acquired stolen goods.

2. As to the determination of whether the facts charged are specified, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserts that the facts charged in the instant case did not specify the date, place, method, transaction volume, etc. of the crime of acquiring stolen property, and thus, the contents of the indictment were not specified.

The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime. As such, the time and time of a crime should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with the time and time of double prosecution or prescription, and the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged by such elements is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime can be identified as different facts by taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment,