In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

1. On October 2016, Defendant A: (a) was aware of the fact that the aforementioned mobile phone was stolen upon the request of Defendant A to sell the 6S-1 mobile phone owned by the victim, which is a stolen owner of the mobile phone, whose name cannot be known by telephone from C, who is a net of work; and (b) was next to the Defendant.

After confirming the intention to purchase B, around October 25, 2016, around 22:00, at the street near the Hong-do University located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, C was allowed to sell the above mobile phone at KRW 1.30,000 by accompanying B.

Accordingly, the defendant assisted the transfer of stolen goods.

2. On October 25, 2016, Defendant B purchased KRW 130,00,000, from the street in the vicinity of the Red-do University located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, with knowledge of the fact that Defendant C was the cost of 6S 1,00,000 mobile phones owned by the victim who was unable to know the name of Defendant C was the cost of 60,000,000 won.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired stolens.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Copy of each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against C or D;

1. Application of the police seizure protocol and the statutes on the list of seizure;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 362(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines;

B. Defendant B: Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 333 (1) of the Criminal Procedure for Return of Victims Act;

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