All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant B) did not take part in all the crimes of Defendant A, and there is no functional control over the act as a co-principal, and there is no habituality of the transport of stolen goods.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants on the lower court’s grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant B, while entering the Gunsan and China’s tin port, had almost all together with Defendant A, and Defendant B received home delivery from the military port with or independently from Defendant A, and Defendant B shared smartphones to Chinese tourists who return to the Republic of Korea with Defendant A.

In full view of these facts and Defendant B’s legal statement in the lower court, it is deemed that Defendant B has a functional control over not only the conspiracy of Defendant A’s stolen transport crimes but also the functional control over Defendant B.

(2) Habitualness in the carriage of stolen goods may be recognized in a case where the damp walls of the carriage of stolen goods are recognized, in addition to the previous conviction of stolen goods, in consideration of the frequency, means and methods of the crime, and motives, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6955 Decided February 8, 2007). In full view of the above evidence, Defendant B, upon the request of Defendant A, transferred out smartphones that were stolen or lost through the home line sent by F to H, to Chinese tourists returning to Korea, and then transferred out such smartphones, which are 356 stolen goods, over 19 times in the same manner of collecting them again in China, can be recognized that Defendant B carried out smartphones over 19 times in the same manner of collecting them again in China. Thus, the Defendant is deemed to have habitual traffic of stolen goods.

(3) Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s judgment is against the Defendants.