The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts: Although there was a fact with a crowdfundinger, there was no mobile phone from the cambling machine, so there was no fact that the mobile phone was stolen.

Nevertheless, the lower court found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

Unfair sentencing: The sentence of the court below (the fine of 300,000 won) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the fact that the Defendant stolen a mobile phone as stated in the instant facts charged can be fully recognized.

First of all, among the victim’s victim’s mother F’s statement in law, “the person in South Korea is the person in scarcity of the defendant” has dementia. The part stating that “hacker was abandoned at the time of collection of clothes and only a mobile phone,” which reads only a mobile phone, does not constitute a case where a person other than the defendant, who made the original statement, is a professional statement whose contents are another person’s statement, and does not constitute a case where the person who made the original statement is unable to make a statement on the date of trial as stipulated in Article 31

(Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the victim stated in the court below’s trial that “a mobile phone operator was posted on a cell phone while playing in a parental district.” At that time, the victim placed the cell phone within the ophone. There is no crowdfunding operator, even though he was unable to take a place after the locking, and no mobile phone operator was available.” The victim stated to the effect that “a mobile phone operator received a cell phone from any person who received a cell phone by walking a cell phone with the mobile phone number.”

(Public Trial Records 41 pages) In addition, according to the on-site CCTV screen (Evidence Record 11-13 pages) and the Defendant’s legal statement, etc., the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant had a package intermediary as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and the victim is within the package intermediary upon the victim’s legal statement as seen earlier.