beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.23 2016노164

장물취득

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she purchased a smartphone from D as stated in the facts constituting a crime 1 through 3 in the judgment below, but was aware of the fact that he/she was a stolen, and he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was a stolen at the time of December 23, 2013, and refused to trade a smartphone with D and did not acquire such smartphone as stated in the facts constituting a crime 4 in the judgment below.

B. Improper argument of sentencing is unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for the instant appeal, and on the grounds that the lower court stated the Defendant’s assertion and its determination in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”

In light of the following facts admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is justified in the judgment of the court below that the defendant was fully aware of the fact that he was a stolen at the time when he purchases smartphones, etc. not used from D, and there was no error of misconception of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

0 Considering that the Defendant did not distribute non-used smartphones acquired from D in the Republic of Korea, such as other heavily used smartphones, and sold the whole smartphones to exporters engaged in smuggling to foreign countries, the Defendant seems to have been aware of the fact that the above smartphones cannot be used in the Republic of Korea at the time of the transaction with D.

3. In light of the following circumstances in determining the unfair argument of sentencing, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, career, background leading to the Defendant’s crime, method and history of punishment, records of punishment, and all other matters pertaining to the sentencing indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments of change, the sentence imposed by the lower court does not seem to be unfair on the ground that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is unlimited.