장물취득등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant acquired 125 cell phoness, which are stolen or lost, from June 2018 to August 10, 2018. However, even according to the criminal facts recognized by the lower court, 125 cell phoness were not specified, and 55 cell phoness were not stolen or lost, and 25 cell phoness were not confirmed. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant acquired 125 cell phoness, which are stolen or lost. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) The lower court determined that the Defendant acquired 125 cellular phoness from B, which are stolen and stolen, and that there was no reason to introduce C from the purchaser of stolen goods to the purchaser of stolen goods, and that there was no need to introduce B and C had already been known prior to March 3, 2018.
Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant introduced C to B so that it can dispose of the cell phone devices, which are stolen, B, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine
B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding forfeiture, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the cash kept by the Defendant was not related to the acquisition or intermediary of stolen property, and there is no evidence to acknowledge relevance.
C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.
The prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment to the effect that the acquisition of the stolen in Paragraph (1) of the previous facts charged during the sixth trial of the trial of the political party was changed as provided in Paragraph (1) of the same Article. On the nine trial date, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment to the stolen in Paragraph (2) of the charges.