2. Determination

A. The facts that Defendant A recognized the facts charged of this case and reflected, that there was no record of the same crime, and that Defendant A was not prosecuted as an accomplice of the principal offender are favorable circumstances.

However, the Defendant acquired 195 cell phoness of a mobile phone, which is used in the related type of business and purchased to D, with the knowledge of the circumstances that are stolen, for about 3 months. In light of the frequency and contents of the crime, the amount of damage inflicted on the mobile phone operator, etc., the liability for the crime is heavy; the acquisition of cellular phone stolen may cause the principal crime, such as theft, and the nature of the crime is bad; the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and other various circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate; and the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that Defendant B recognized the instant facts charged and opposed to it, and arranged the method of introducing the purchaser of the core chips, which is not individually arranged at each time of transaction, and seems to have no profit acquired from the instant crime, is more favorable.

However, the instant crime may cause the principal offense, such as fraud, due to the physical crime of a core chip, and may cause additional crimes, such as using a mediumphone or using online settlement, if the stolen chip, is distributed.