The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) A mobile phone 200 mobile phones listed in the facts constituting the crime of the lower court (hereinafter “instant mobile phone”).

2) Since there is no evidence to readily conclude that F or the above mobile phone opening title holders sold to the Defendant the U.S.IM card, etc., or the above mobile phone opening title holders had the intention of defraudation with intent to not pay the cost of equipment and communication fees from the beginning, the instant mobile phone cannot be deemed to fall under stolen goods. 2) The Defendant did not know that the instant mobile phone opening title holders sold H by F in line with the instant mobile phone or the Defendant’s arrangement constituted stolen goods.

B. The sentence of two-year suspended execution on one year and six months of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) On the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the instant mobile phone constitutes stolen goods, since F was acquired by property crime and thus, it can be deemed that the instant mobile phone constitutes stolen goods, by deceiving the mobile phone operator as if it were to pay the device cost and communication fee, and thereby resulting in considerable loss to the mobile phone operator.

B. In addition, the court below held that the mobile phone of this case was opened through the so-called "TM", which takes the name of another person, and that the defendant was also aware of it, and that the defendant was also aware of it, and other types of the defendant's occupation, crime history, and transaction method of the mobile phone of this case recognized by the prosecutor's evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and transacted.