A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the crime of this case under unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor in 2003 and imprisonment with prison labor in 2005, and that the Defendant committed the crime of this case despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in 2003, and that the quantity of stolen goods acquired by the Defendant is not significant, but all of the crimes of this case are led to confessions and reflects, and that the Defendant has no criminal power for the last ten years, and each of the crimes of this case was committed under favorable circumstances,

B. The instant crime of this case is a case where the Defendant acquired stolen goods equivalent to KRW 90 million from C, a stolen business entity, for about one year, and the case is not easy in light of the period of the crime, the scale of damage, etc.

Since the Defendant agreed with the victims of stolen goods and C, the primary purchaser of stolen goods, at the trial of the party, they submitted a written agreement in July 2016 to the effect that they would be considered in the sentencing judgment of the Defendant, which was concluded in August 2016. However, this appears to have been submitted in the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court, the criminal case of stolen goods acquisition, in 2016Da40, 170, 171, 427 (each consolidation). However, even if C had agreed with the victims, it is not considered in the judgment on sentencing of the Defendant.

Considering the favorable circumstances that the Defendant’s actual profits from the instant crime appears to be less than the above amount, the lower court’s sentencing judgment is discretionary in full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, etc., in addition to the aforementioned factors considered in the sentencing judgment.