Defendant

B Imprisonment for 10 months, and Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for 6 months, respectively.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On October 2012, the Defendant received a request to request for a change by transporting one gallon in an amount equivalent to 990,000 won at the market price, which is equivalent to 90,000 won at which D was owned by victims of false name thefted from B located in China, and one gallon in the market where the market price is equivalent to 90,000 won at the market price, and one gallon in an unknown market.

Since the Defendant suspected that the purchase price of the above mobile phone was much much higher than the market price, the Defendant had a duty of care to confirm whether the above mobile phone was stolen by checking the process of acquisition of the above mobile phone against D and B.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above care and neglected the judgment on the stolen goods and transported the stolen goods to B by smelling it to the ship freight on the front side of the F High School located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, with knowledge of the fact that the aforementioned mobile phone is stolen at the front end of October 2012, the Defendant: (a) laid off the aforementioned mobile phone from D; (b) paid 450,000 won; and (c) paid it early; and (d) paid it to B.

B. On October 2012, the Defendant received a request for the transport of 11 mobile phones equivalent to KRW 99,00 in the market value of KRW 99,00,00 from B located in China, which was owned by the victims of the false name thefted by D from B located in China. The Defendant received the request for the transport of 11 mobile phones equivalent to KRW 99,00 in the market value of KRW 90,00,000 in the market value of KRW 90,000 in the market value of KRW 90,000 in the market value of KRW 10,430,000 in the market value of KRW 9,00.

Since the Defendant suspected that the purchase price of the above mobile phone was much much higher than the market price, the Defendant had a duty of care to confirm whether the above mobile phone was stolen by checking the process of acquisition of the above mobile phone against D and B.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the foregoing care and neglected the judgment on the stolen goods by gross negligence on October 17, 2012, and knew that the cell phone was the stolen goods in front of the Hodong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Hodong-gu Hridge around 10:00 on October 17, 2012.