Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, the two years each from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 8, 2012, Defendant A purchased at KRW 1.50,00,00 each of the three of the three of the two of the three of the two of the three of the three of the three of the three of the five of the five of the five of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two,

2. Defendant B, who operated “G” in the North-gu, Northern-si F at the port of port with Defendant E, purchased a stolen or lost portable phone from an intermediate seller, including A, and conspired to sell and sell it.

On August 8, 2012, the Defendant acquired stolens over 40 times from August 2012 to January 2013, 2012, including purchasing and acquiring KRW 1.90,00,00 each, with knowledge of the fact that the portable phone purchased by A in the above manner was an stolen object, and acquiring stolens over 40 times from August 2, 2012 to January 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. The legal statement of the witness H in part;

1. In the case of Defendant B’s suspect interrogation protocol under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act and each police protocol against H (in the case of H, part thereof)

1. Statement made by the anonymous police;

1. The defendant A and his defense counsel in determining the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion of the investigation report (the result of execution of a warrant of search and seizure inspection). Although there were some stolens at the time of purchase of a mobile phone, most of the remaining parts were known to the mobile phone and did not know that they were stolen.

The argument is asserted.

The perception that stolens are stolen is not required to be a conclusive perception, and dolusent perceptions are sufficient to the extent that they are suspected of spreading stolens (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do107, Apr. 14, 1987).