All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the Defendants recognized all the facts charged in this case and cooperate with the investigation by providing information known to the Defendants in connection with the stolen mobile phone trade, etc., and did not give particular benefits to the crime in this case. The punishment sentenced by the court below (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the above facts, the court below acknowledged the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants provided all information that they knew of the facts charged at the court below; and (b) Defendant A was guilty of a fine due to larceny, embezzlement, and drunk driving; and (c) Defendant B was only a criminal record of a fine due to drunk driving; and (d) Defendant B was only a criminal record of a fine due to the same kind of criminal record or imprisonment without prison labor.

However, in light of various circumstances, including the defendants' age, character and conduct, motive, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, each victim's loss of such a mobile phone would lose their purchase price only KRW 48,00,000,000, each victim would lose their own mobile phone and information stored therein, each victim's systematic transaction form, such as exporting the stolen mobile phone purchased from D along with normal and large-scale mobile phone and delivering it to the Chinese customer by dividing it into a part of a normal and large-scale mobile phone, and the defendants' act of larceny or the embezzlement of possession of stolen and stolen objects is also promoted. The defendants did not seem to have obtained any profit from such transaction. In full view of all other circumstances, it is not recognized that the court below's punishment imposed on the defendants in the argument of this case, such as the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.