All parts of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant BA of the public prosecutor, Defendant BA was provided as security the U.S. mobile phone which is not an agent designated by Defendant A, and some of the mobile phone packaging boxes are posted with a Sticker indicating the trade name of an agency other than the sales store of Defendant A, and even if there were special circumstances to suspect that it is stolen, Defendant BA was negligent in performing the duty of care required for the pawner and received the instant mobile phone as security.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant BA not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it did not violate the duty of care in the course of business, and there is an error of mistake of facts.

B. The respective punishment of Defendant A (the imprisonment of eight months, the fine of two million won, and the imprisonment of ten months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant BA’s judgment on the instant facts charged, Defendant BA was operating the pawned Center of Electronic Communication Equipment with the trade name “BU” in Seo-gu, Busan. From March 2014 to April 20, 2014, Defendant BA lent the amount of money to A several times, and was provided seven mobile phone units owned by the victim BK and 17 mobile phone units owned by the victim BN and stolen victim BN, respectively.

On the other hand, each of the above mobile phones was not opened, and it was impossible to open normally, and some of the mobile phones packaging boxes included the name and telephone number of the agent other than the above A’s mobile phone sales store. As such, Defendant BA operating the pawnpo, who was sufficiently provided as security by means of telephone call, etc., can verify whether the above mobile phone was embezzled or stolen.