The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The defendant above.

[Judgment as to the Reasons for Appeal] The summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1-B.

gallon ju S2 (Japanese No. F, 1 Smartphone), gallon jus (Japanese No. G, 2 smartphone), and 1 d.

The four smartphones in the gallon S (Japanese No. Q, No. 3 Smartphone), options machine LTE (Dried No. N, No. 4 Smartphone) as stated in the facts charged are merely acquisition methods, and the victim is merely merely merely a good, so it cannot be concluded as stolens.

(De Facto Error). The sentencing of the lower court (200,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

(F) On the other hand, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, the Prosecutor's ex officio examined the grounds of appeal, and one of the facts charged in this case against the Defendant at the trial.

Paragraph (2) of the lower judgment (the last sentence of the second part) “observers LTE (Dried No. N)” shall read “victim Q A” as “observers LTE (Dried No. N) owned by the victim Q,” and 1-D.

Paragraph 6-8 of Paragraph 3 of the lower judgment (No. 6-8 of the lower judgment) stated that “one gallon jus (fallon Q) smartphone with which the victim is unknown and 3.50,000 won in total with the knowledge of the fact that the cost of smartphone 1 is a stolen product” was “one gallon jus (fallon No. 50,000 won) owned by the victim, with the knowledge of the fact that the cost of smartphone 1 is a stolen product,” and that this court was subject to the judgment upon permission, this part of the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, as seen earlier in this part of the facts charged, the guilty portion and each of the remaining offenses found guilty in the original judgment are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of aggravating concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed in its entirety.

However, the defendant's 1 and 2 smartphones are related to the defendant's 1 and 2 smartphones despite the above reasons for destruction.