Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

seizure.

2. The prosecutor held ex officio (Defendant B) that the date and time of the first sentence of the crime committed against Defendant B following the facts charged in the trial of the court below: “from the beginning of February 2012 to the day of July 22, 2012, the number of damaged mobile phones is “a approximately KRW 5.50 mobile phones”; the purchase price of mobile phones was “a purchase at the level of KRW 4 to KRW 300,000 per vehicle according to the model”; the second sentence’s “act of purchasing mobile phones” and the fourth sentence’s “act of selling mobile phones” added to the facts charged; and the second sentence’s “act of selling mobile phones” and the fourth sentence’s act of transferring stolen stolen goods was modified by this court, and as long as the court found Defendant B guilty of the modified facts charged as seen below, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B cannot be maintained.

However, the Defendant C’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for the reversal of authority.

3. As to the Defendant C’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the circumstances may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as: (a) Defendant C is against the truth of the instant crime; (b) promised to donate organ and human body organs, such as kidne, kidne, and so on; (c) the developments leading to the instant crime due to the de facto absence of criminal record; and (d) the absence of the same kind of criminal record.

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant C, who habitually acquired a stolen mobile phone, promoting or supporting the crime of larceny or embezzlement of stolen objects from possession of mobile phones, and due to such crime, illegal mobile phone distribution transactions are getting on board, and the mobile phone is acquired.