장물취득
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., one year of imprisonment and confiscation against Defendant A, and six months of imprisonment against Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is against Defendant A’s wrongness while committing the instant crime; Defendant A did not have been punished for the same criminal record; and some of the damaged goods of the instant crime were returned to the victims; however, Defendant A, for the instant crime, provided funds to purchase the lost mobile phone from taxi engineers in return for living together with Defendant B, Co-Defendant C, and Defendant C, and Defendant C, and Defendant D, for the purpose of the instant crime, purchased the mobile phone from the victims, and divided the aforementioned Defendants into a cell phone with an instruction to purchase the mobile phone; the mobile phone was disposed of again in another way; it was more particularly more criminal liability than other Defendants; Defendant A purchased a mobile phone, which was organized as above, for a short period of 130 times, more thanks to the short period; Defendant A’s considerable part of the damaged goods of the instant crime were returned to the victims; Defendant A’s age and economic benefits were sold; Defendant A’s motive for the instant crime and the possibility of loss of the instant mobile phone due to the victims.
B. Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding Defendant B’s assertion that unfair sentencing is divided into two parts: (a) the commission of the instant crime and the mistake; and (b) the Defendant.