The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence No. 12.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, and the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment.

B. The trial prior to the remand dismissed the Defendant’s appeal, and the Defendant appealed against this.

C. The Supreme Court rendered a decision that the part concerning “acquisition” under Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act among Article 363 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) is unconstitutional (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunGa16, 19, 23 (Merger) Decided February 26, 2015), and the instant legal provision retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act. As such, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality on February 26, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the case was not prosecuted for a crime committed by the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014HunGa16, 19, 23 (Merger)).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the number of times the Defendant acquired stolen goods due to the characteristics of the mobile phone sales is high, and there is no ground to acknowledge the habituality of the Defendant due to the lack of the same criminal record, and there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the habituality of the acquisition of stolen goods.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case is examined ex officio, and the public prosecutor reaches the trial.