장물취득
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant C and G shall be reversed.
Defendant
C. A fine of KRW 3,00,000, Defendant G.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) by the lower court (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment; 7 million won of fine; d., F: each fine of two million won of fine; 3 million won of fine); and e.g., Defendant G), are excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. It is recognized that Defendant A, D, and F confessions each crime and reflects the wrongness of the Defendants, and Defendant F could have been tried together with the final and conclusive crime.
However, the crime of acquiring stolen goods, which the above Defendants committed, needs to be eradicated because the nature of the crime is not good, such as encouraging the crime of larceny against smartphones. Defendant A purchased smartphones lost or stolen from a taxi engineer, etc. in a planned and organized manner. The number of smartphones acquired stolen is considerably significant when the degree of damage is 109 times in total. Defendant D had been punished for the same crime. Defendant D had the record of being punished by a fine due to the same crime. Although there was no criminal record, the number of smartphones acquired by participating in the crime of acquiring smartphones systematically is about 49 times, and Defendant F had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition one time as a crime of larceny, stolen, stolen, and stolen, and considering the fact that the number of smartphones acquired is about 14 times in total, the age, character, and environment of the above Defendants, the motive, method and circumstances of the crime of this case, etc., the punishment of the lower court is unreasonable.
B. Defendant C or G’s crime of aiding and abetting the stolen goods committed by the said Defendants is not appropriate to encourage the crime, such as larceny against smartphones, and thus need to eradicate the crime. Defendant C’s crime of aiding and abetting the instant crime without being aware of even though it was under suspension of execution due to special larceny, etc., and constitutes the same crime.