C The victims who were unable to know their names purchased the mobile phone from their own discretion on the taxi, etc., and purchased the mobile phone from the taxi engineers around February 2015 in mind, and around March 2015, the victims purchased the mobile phone from the taxi engineers.

On February 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) purchased 100,000 won from March 29, 2015, 2015, 15 cell phone owners owned by the victims, including the purchase of 15 cell phone units from the victims, even though he/she knows that the market price of the taxi article was a stolen; and (b) purchased 15 cell phoness owned by the victims from March 29, 2015 to March 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Part C of the third police interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Application of the second and fourth police interrogation protocol to C to each statute; and

1. Relevant Articles 362(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. From among concurrent crimes, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing as prescribed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of concurrent crimes as stated in No. 7 of the year list of annexed crimes, which are the largest offense) of the Criminal Act recognizes all of the crimes, is against the mistake, and the defendant seems to have many profits acquired by the crime of this case.

However, even though the defendant had been sentenced to a fine due to the same type of crime under the same law as this case, it has not been more than three months, and again, there have been several records of punishment for the defendant, and there have been a few times, and the period of the crime in this case has not been shorter than two months.