2. Although the judgment of the court below is acknowledged that the defendant's act of acquiring stolen stolen stolen property in this case is likely to not repeat the same mistake and there is a self-support form to support, the crime of acquiring stolen stolen property in this case requires a strict punishment, and there is a need to punish the defendant as being able to stimulate or actively encourage the criminal intent of the theft of mobile phones which has recently caused large social water, and losses have not been recovered until the trial in this case. In full view of all the sentencing conditions on the arguments in this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive leading to the crime in this case, quantity and value of damaged goods, etc., the punishment of the court below is not proper and heavy, and thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that he did not advertise "I purchase a popon or a popon," through the Internet. However, considering the fact that although he did not directly operate the Baber containing the content of "I purchase a popon or a popon, I stated the contact number (P) as a buyer, he acquired a stolen from a mobile phone user who reported contact address, and the defendant also recognized the fact of acquiring a stolen from a person who contacted with him through his contact address as a result of an investigation conducted by an investigative agency, it is not considered that such an advertisement was not conducted.

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