A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant merely tried to find a mobile phone principal in order to find a mobile phone, and the defendant did not have an intention to obtain illegal profits. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in detail under the title "the determination of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below on the same ground as the ground of appeal in this case. In addition, the court below's aforementioned determination is examined in detail with the records and examined the following circumstances: ① the defendant did not take measures such as informing the police officer of the fact that he would return the victim's mobile phone to the police officer upon receiving a request from the police officer who received a report of theft from the victim, or that he keeps a male-friendly job F's cell phone, and instead, the defendant did not take measures such as informing F of the fact that he will return the victim's mobile phone to the police officer, or that he stored the male-friendly job F's cell phone in the front line, Busan-gu, Busan, with a mobile phone, and ③ the defendant's mobile phone acquisition at the point of time when the defendant's cell phone was stored in the front line with the victim's mobile phone, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant is the primary offender and the victim does not want to punish the defendant.

However, the defendant.