beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant - misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant is not the stolen phone of this case. A, the principal offender of the crime of acquiring stolen property through occupational negligence of this case, did not acquire the victim G, etc., but acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of the heavy transaction of the mobile phone. The victims were in a state where they can recover the mobile phone delivered to A at any time, and the victims' act of acquiring stolen property through occupational negligence of this case does not make it difficult for them to recover. Furthermore, the victims installed a mobile phone for the purpose of self-financial services prohibited by Telecommunications Business Act and delivered it to A. Accordingly, the victims who acquired the mobile phone cannot be deemed as stolen property. Thus, the court below found the victims' cell phone as stolen property, and found the defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case by regarding the victims' cell phone as stolen property. 2) The defendants alleged that there was no occupational negligence by the defendant, by purchasing the mobile phone from A, verified the unique identification number of the mobile phone and the resident registration number of the nominal owner, and fulfilled their duty of
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that he violated the duty of care as a mobile phone dealer during the process of purchasing a mobile phone from A.
3. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s crime constitutes a single comprehensive crime, is a business entity that purchases and resells high-speed cell phones, and repeatedly purchases mobile phones from A based on the same intent, and thus, the Defendant’s crime of this case shall be based on a single comprehensive crime.
Nevertheless, the defendant's crime of this case is in accordance with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.