The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered is too unhued and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is a case where the Defendant purchased smartphones owned by the victims from around September 12, 2012 to around April 2013, by being aware of the fact that the victims’ smartphones owned by the victims were stolen at least 13 times from around September 12, 2012, and subsequently acquires stolen goods by sharing their roles systematically and systematically with accomplices.

The fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not significant, and that there is a need for strict punishment for the theft of smartphones, which is an essential element for the interest of high-priced items in modern society, and for the stolen crimes that result in the promotion of such crimes.

However, the Defendant recognized that all of his criminal acts were committed, and the degree of participation is relatively low compared to other accomplices, and the Defendant received less criminal proceeds, and partial recovery of damage was made due to the restoration of considerable parts of the damaged goods, and the Defendant has no criminal record in addition to the suspended sentence for a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, etc., which may be considered favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, there was no new sentencing data that can reverse the sentencing of the court below in this court, and considering various sentencing conditions in the arguments of this case, including the above circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfeasible and unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.