A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for four months, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

[Criminal Records] Defendant A was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Seoul Western District Court on January 29, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 30, 2015.

[Criminal facts] 2016 Highest 1750

1. At around 04:47 on April 1, 2016, Defendant A, as “F” in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, or in the second floor of the second floor below the building, Defendant A stolen a mobile phone of the amount of KRW 900,000 (Aphone 6) equivalent to the market price of KRW 900,000 (Aphone 6) at which the victim G, the victim H was placed in charge of the head of other victims, as shown in the table of the crime in the attached Table (1) net six times.

In addition, from June 2015 to April 9, 2016, the Defendant stolen nine cell phoness worth KRW 7,450,000, total market price owned by the victims seven times in total, as shown in the annexed crime sight table (1) from around 05:36, 2016.

2. Defendant B is a person who is engaged in trading of a heavy cell phone while operating a street store on the rear side of the I building B block of Seoul Jung-gu.

On April 1, 2016, from around 08:00 to around 09:00 of the same day, the Defendant purchased two mobile phones equivalent to the total market price of KRW 1,800,000 (opon 6S) including one cell phone (opon 6S) holding the victim G owned by Defendant A, and one cell phone holding the victim H, equivalent to KRW 900,000 (opon 6) holding the market price of KRW 900,00,000.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to confirm whether the defendant who is engaged in the trade of heavy cell phones is stolen or not by ascertaining the personal information of the defendant A, while taking into account the developments leading up to the acquisition of the mobile phone, the motive for the sale, and the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the defendant has such a principle.