The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant acquired smartphones received from B without knowing that they were stolen.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are acknowledged, considering the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the punishment (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The perception of stolen goods is not required to be a conclusive recognition, and it is also sufficient to be a dolusent recognition to the extent of doubt that the stolen goods are ambiguous. Whether the stolen goods have been aware of the fact that they are stolen or not should be recognized by taking into account the identity of the possessor of the stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Do3590 delivered on September 5, 200 and 2004Do5904 delivered on December 9, 2004, etc.) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant seems to have been suspected that smartphones received from B were used as stolen goods.

Therefore, it is just to find the defendant guilty and there is no violation of law of mistake of facts.

At the police station B, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was slicking a smartphone to the Defendant, and the Defendant was slicking because he wanted to use his smartphones, and the Defendant was slicking a smartphone,” and that “The Defendant was slicking on his smartphones, but was slicking even after slicking the smartphones, but the Defendant was not slicking,” and that “The Defendant did not receive the phone.”

The above statements in B are made by the victim C, the owner of the above smartphone, from the police station, “(loaked smartphone) for two hours.”