Acquisition of stolen stolens

(b) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

2.(a)(b) C

3. A.

Attorney E, F in charge

When Defendant C fails to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

Part 1 (No. 1), one mobile phone (Evidence SEC-SCHS470), one mobile phone (Evidence No. 2), one mobile phone (Evidence No. 2), 127 (Evidence No. 3), one 127 (Evidence No. 4), one 127 (Evidence No. 5), one 37,000 won, one 37 (Evidence No. 6), four 00,000 won, one 4 (Evidence No. 7), and five Mano No. 8 (Evidence No. 8) seized from the Defendant B, one Maro (mmpher 5,00W), one 1 (Evidence No. 200), one 1 (Evidence No. 2000), one 3,000 won (Evidence No. 4213 (Evidence No. 23,000) of the mobile phone (E-W470), and one 3,0000 won (Evidence No. 2323) of the AM No. 42323 (Evidence No.

1. Defendant B and C’s co-principal conduct

around June 2012, Defendant C purchased 1stopon (G) from 1stopon in front of the 2ndopon station in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and then purchased 1stopon from 1stopon to 24 hours, and additionally purchased 1stopon from 2ndopon from 1stopon at the same place on November 2012, Defendant C manufactured 1stopon stating “Personal Driving, 24 hours, counseling, H” and distributed 1stopon 2ndopon 1stopon to 3thopon 4thopon 2ndopon 1stopon 2ndopon 1stopon 2ndon 1stopon 2ndon 2ndon 2ndon 1stopon 2nd on 1stopon 20th on 2ndon 3rd on 1stopon 2ndon 2ndon 2nd on 2nd on 2ndon 3rd on 2nd on 2ndon 3rd.

Therefore, the Defendants conspired habitually, and acquired smartphones which are stolen.

2. Defendant C.

The Defendant driven 50c stacks without obtaining a motorcycle driver's license at the places indicated in Nos. 2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26, respectively.

3. Defendant A

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant purchased smartphones from taxi engineers in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which passengers lost, and sentenced them to dispose of them to a mobile phone dealer.

A. On March 2013, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 60,000,00, even though he/she knew of the fact that the victim J was lost (HD in gallona) price from a de facto taxi driver at an influent place in Seoul.

B. On March 2013, the Defendant purchased the stolen in a non-permanent place located in Seoul, with knowledge of the fact that the victim K lost one cost of a mobile phone (observer interview) from an unclaimed taxi driver, and acquired the stolen goods.

C. On March 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased stolen goods from a de facto taxi driver with knowledge of the fact that the victim’s L was lost (gallon 2) price from a de facto taxi driver at a place in Seoul; and (b) acquired stolen goods from a de facto taxi driver.

D. On March 2013, the Defendant purchased stolen goods from a mobile phone driver (observer 2) with knowledge of the fact that the victim M was lost from an unclaimed taxi driver at a place in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

E. Around March 2013, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing 2,50,000 won after being aware of the fact that one cost of a mobile phone (gallon No. 2) lost by the victim N from an unclaimed taxi driver at a place in Seoul located in Seoul. Around March 2013, the Defendant purchased stolen goods from a unclaimed taxi driver at a place in Seoul. Around March 2013, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing 1 cost of a mobile phone (i.e., Aphone 5) lost by the victim from an unclaimed taxi driver at a place in Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

[Fact 1]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B and C

1. Each police interrogation protocol on P, Q, R, R, T, U,V, W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AC, I, AD, AE, AE, AF, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM,N, and AO;

1. Each police statement of AP and Q;

1. Statement of seizure by police (fore, 66, 69 pages of investigation records);

1. Each police investigation report (the contact point of the suspect B on the purchase of the lost mobile phone stated by the suspect B, the telephone conversations between the taxi engineer's cell phone and the cell phone name of the smart agency operator, etc. attached to H, the attachment of G, the attachment of the suspect's cell phone calls from G to G, the attachment of the telephone conversations between G and AD, the attachment of the telephone conversations between G and the suspect's cell phone, the attachment of the telephone conversations between G and AE of the suspect, the attachment of the telephone conversations between AJ of the suspect AJ, the attachment of the suspect's phone conversations between H and H, the attachment of the suspect's cell phone contents, the attachment of the phone conversations between AK and the suspect's cell phone operator, the attachment of the suspect's phone conversations between AM and G, the attachment of the suspect's cell phone contents with G, and the attachment of the suspect's phone conversations between AOG);

1. Report on internal investigation by each police (general) (related to the activities of smartphone wholesalers, and internal investigation by outside the police officers);

1. A copy of a name box, and a new name card;

1. Screenings by cutting a black and video screen;

1. Each habituality of the judgment: Recognition of each habition in light of the records of each crime, method of the commission of the crime, frequency of the crime, period of the crime, and the fact that the same kind of crime has been repeated systematically and systematically;

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Data about driver's license inquiry;

【Fact 3 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each police statement of the R and AS;

1. Each statement of L, M, N, J, K, and 0;

1. Police seizure records (record No. 1934);

1. Each police investigation report (the attachment of a note found in the Chinese smuggling system AS-related investigation, the attachment of a note found in the suspect A-related vehicle, the confirmation of the cell phone owner discovered in the suspect A-related vehicle, the attachment of the details of phone calls made by the suspect A to the Chinese business operator, and a copy of the note log discovered in the suspect A-related vehicle);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant B: Articles 363(1), 362(1), and 30(generality) of the Criminal Act. Defendant C: Articles 363(1), 362(1), and 30(generality acquisition) of the Criminal Act; Articles 154 Subparag. 2 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of driving without a license, the choice of fines). Defendant A: Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and each of the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) shall be imposed concurrently with a fine of aggravated punishment as provided for in the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) No. 20 No. 5 of the Criminal Act;

(b) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the crime of acquisition of stolen goods by a victim N with the largest offense)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

A. Defendant B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the consideration of favorable circumstances required for sentencing following the following reasons):

B. Defendant C: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (for the crime of habitual acquisition of stolen goods at the time of sale, taking into account the favorable circumstances required for the following sentencing reasons)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant C: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant B, A; Defendant B, C, and their defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Defendant B, C, and their defense counsel asserted that the above Defendants are not habitually recognized in the crime of this case.

In light of all the circumstances, such as the method, frequency, motive, etc. of the crime of this case, which can be known by the evidence of this case, the habitual acquisition of stolen property refers to the habit of the actor, which is repeated acquisition of stolen property. In determining whether there exists such habit, the criminal records of the acquisition of stolen property are important, but even if there is no criminal records of the acquisition of stolen property, the criminal records of the acquisition of stolen property should be recognized as habituality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6955, Feb. 8, 2007). In light of all the following circumstances such as the method, frequency, motive, and means, etc. of the crime of this case, which can be seen by the evidence of this case, the defendant B does not have the previous and the fine one time prior to the crime of this case, and even if the defendant C did not have previous and previous, it is reasonable to view that there was a habit that the above defendants had repeatedly acquired stolen property at the time of the crime of this case.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant B

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of six months to five years

【Determination of Sentence】

The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as that the defendant purchased a taxi driver I, etc. and transferred the stolen mobile phone to a taxi driver, etc., and the crime was committed systematically and systematically, and the victim was committed not only in many unspecified persons, but also in light of the frequency of the crime, the amount of the acquired mobile phone, and the amount and value of the mobile phone. The victim who lost the mobile phone did not reach an agreement or complete recovery from damage, and most of the victims who lost the mobile phone did not actually have been able to recover the damage. In ordinary mobile phones, the inconvenience or mental suffering of the owner due to the loss exceeds the economic value of the mobile phone because information such as the telephone number, etc., which was exposed to the owner of the mobile phone, is included, and the defendant is punished by a fine for the same kind of crime.

However, the punishment shall be determined by taking into consideration the following circumstances: (a) the confession of all the crimes in this case led to the misunderstanding, the benefits acquired by the crime in this case are not relatively large; (b) the Defendant’s family members and branch members submitted a majority of the written applications of the Defendant’s preference; (c) the victim Q and agreement was made; (d) the Defendant’s contribution of KRW 2 million to the UNNF Korea Committee, which is an incorporated association, as well as other circumstances that conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character

2. Defendant C.

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of six months to five years, and fine of 50,000 to 450,000 won

【Determination of Sentence】

The crime of habitual acquisition of stolens in this case is a normal situation that the defendant systematically committed the crime that the defendant purchased a stolen mobile phone from I et al. and transferred it to a stolen mobile phone dealer after the defendant purchased the stolen mobile phone from I et al., and the victim was not only many unspecified persons, in light of the frequency of the crime, the amount of the acquired mobile phone, and the amount and value of the mobile phone, and most of the victims who lost the mobile phone did not have agreed or complete recovery from damage, and it seems that it is practically impossible to recover the damage. In ordinary mobile phones, the owner's inconvenience or mental suffering from the loss exceeds the economic value of the mobile phone because the information, such as the phone number of the owner's severe damage, is included, and the inconvenience or mental suffering of the owner due to the loss exceeds the economic value of the mobile phone. The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (free License) in this case was committed by the defendant two times or more due to the same crime, but it is not easy that the crime was committed.

However, the punishment shall be determined by taking into consideration the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes, and there is no record of punishment for the crime of acquiring stolen property; (b) the gains acquired by habitually acquiring stolen property in this case are relatively little; (c) the family members and branch members of the Defendant submitted a majority of the written applications of the Defendant’s preference; (d) 500,000 won as an incorporated association donated to the UNNF Korea Committee; and (e) other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment.

3. Defendant A

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment from January to June 10

【Determination of Sentence】

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in a systematic and systematic manner after the defendant purchased the mobile phone lost by taxi passengers from a taxi engineer, who was not killed in the name of the defendant, and the crime was transferred to a stolen mobile phone dealer, the crime was committed, and the victim who lost the mobile phone did not complete recovery of damage between the victim who lost the mobile phone, and the above defendant was prosecuted for the crime of habitual stolen acquisition with knowledge of about 80 cost of the original mobile phone, and was prosecuted for the crime of simple stolen acquisition only six mobile phones due to the specific damage, etc., it is necessary to punish the defendant with severe punishment in consideration of various circumstances.

However, the punishment shall be determined by taking into consideration the following circumstances: (a) the confession of all the crimes of this case by the Defendant committed the crime of this case; (b) there is no record of criminal punishment of the same kind; (c) the profits acquired by the crime of this case are not relatively significant; (d) the family members and branch members of the Defendant submitted a majority of the written applications of the Defendant’s preference; (c) the victim0; (d) M submitted the written applications of the Defendant’s preference to the Defendant’s preference; (d) the contribution of KRW 2.5 million to the UNNF Korea Committee, which is incorporated, to the Defendant’s age, character

Judges, Superintendent of the National Assembly

Judges Kim Gin-ju