2. In determining the punishment against the Defendant, the lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the number of Handphones acquired by the Defendant, the purchase price, the circumstances leading to the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, in light of the frequency and date of the crime, the crime of acquiring stolen stolen goods, etc., not only encourage the crime of larceny against the mobile phone, or embezzlement of occupying stolen goods, but also taking into account the fact that the cell phone acquired with stolen goods is highly likely to cause other crimes because it is distributed and used as stolen phone, and thus, requires strict punishment. Considering the favorable circumstances in which the Defendant reflects the depth of the crime, the lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the number of Handphones acquired by the Defendant, the purchase price, the circumstances leading to the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no change in circumstances to regard that maintaining the sentencing of the court below is unfair in the trial.

Ultimately, the punishment sentenced by the court below shall be appropriate, and it shall not be deemed unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.