Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On March 18, 2018, the Defendant, along with the facts charged in the instant case, promised the Defendant to receive KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 100,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

Accordingly, the Defendant and B knew that the above Handphone is a stolen, and they promised to contact B with a mobile phone purchaser who became aware of the Internet search, thereby mediating the sale of the above Handphone, and then, the Defendant sent C to the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Accounting Station, which was the promise place to trade with the mobile phone purchaser on March 19, 2018.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with B to arrange the transfer of stolen property.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment: (a) based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that the Defendant could not have any reasonable doubt; and (b)

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that it is difficult to view that there was a functional control over the act that can be evaluated as a co-principal.

① When the principal offender C requested the disposal of a mobile phone by posting a phone to a fluor B, the Defendant sent time to the fluence B and the main station in soup.

If the case is not planned to be independent, the defendant, whose time is sufficient, has been playing together in the PC and soup.