However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who purchases high-value smartphones lost by a passenger from a taxi driver at low-priced prices by using a mobile phone light in the vicinity of the city in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government at the new wall time and expressing his/her intention to purchase a mobile phone by scaming.

On August 30, 2016, around 02:30, the Defendant purchased 2.10,00 won from a non-registered taxi article with the knowledge of the fact that the victim B lost 836,00 won at the galloning market price of 836,000 won at the time of the loss of the victim B by the above means in front of the Seoul Geumcheon-gu Seoul Si Office, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant acquired 2.10,00 won at the galloning market price of 858,00 won at the time of the loss of the victim’s name and the galloning market price of 858,00 won

From around 03:00 on August 31, 2016, the Defendant acquired seven mobile phones from those with no name-based taxi drivers with the knowledge that they are stolens over three times in the list of annexed crimes and a total of three times in the same manner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the police seizure protocol statutes;

1. Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act concerning the aggravation of concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person [the person subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (from June to one year and six months) of Class 1 (the stolen goods of general funeral), [the decision of sentence] [the defendant was committed again despite the past record of the same crime for 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months], but there is an unfavorable circumstance, such as recognizing and opposing the crime of this case, damage is both seized, and there is no past record heavier than the fine, so the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing.

(b) for more than one year.