Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

A. According to the prosecutor's records (defendant G), Defendant G could sufficiently see that the mobile phone offered as security could not be owned by a mobile phone sales store, and thus, Defendant G had the intention of acquiring stolen goods.

Even if there was no perception of stolen goods.

Even if the defendant G received a consignment contract, it is doubtful that the ownership relationship should be confirmed and it should be confirmed.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted all of the primary and conjunctive charges, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (with regard to fraud), Defendant C received the payment of KRW 10 million from the victim to the mobile phone sales store, and did not receive the remainder of the money. Since the opening of the sales store, the business was difficult due to external factors after the opening of the sales store, and did not have the intent or ability to operate the sales store normally from the beginning. Nevertheless, the court below convicted Defendant C1 of this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: A, B, D, C, F, and E were in custody of a mobile phone from a mobile phone agency to sell a mobile phone while operating the mobile phone store, and they were in a position to keep the mobile phone for the agency until they are sold to the customers, but they were in a position to keep the mobile phone for the agency.

On the other hand, Defendant G offered as security by the above B, etc.