A. Although the defendant had purchased a mobile phone, the fact that the mobile phone is stolen was entirely different.

In other words, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in the court below is because it was too difficult in the police investigation that the defendant would promptly receive the trial due to excessive force, and it is also unreasonable to determine that the defendant is a stolen acquisition in the absence of the person who stolen the mobile phone, the victim and the mobile phone which is the damaged

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence and accepted the following circumstances: ① from November 2012 to E, A had purchased a stolen mobile phone with E; the Defendant had been living together with A from Dec. 2, 2012 to receive money in the erogate station, new forest station, river station, river station, and river station, etc.; ② the Defendant had received a mobile phone or received a house from the erogate under his own name at the erogate; ② even on the day of the instant crime, the Defendant provided 70,00 won and 70,000 won to the male under his name from the erogthal ju City 2 mobile phone near the erogate, as well as received erogate 2 mobile phone from the erogate, and ③ had been aware that the Defendant purchased the aforementioned circumstances to the above erogate, which later would have been retired. ④ Even if the Defendant directly received the mobile phone from the other party, the price of the used goods could be paid to the other party.