All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not know that he was stolen at the time of purchasing the instant mobile phone from A, and did not neglect his duty of care as a mobile phone purchaser.

In other words, at each time of purchase, the Defendant confirmed the source from A, purchased at an appropriate market price according to the unit price table, and confirmed whether the Defendant was lost or stolen through the terminal self-sufficiency Internet container.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and two years of suspended execution with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the records of judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (Defendant B).

① The mobile phone indicated in the facts charged, among the mobile phones sold to the Defendant by A, is an unfolded cell phone and so-called so-called “through” cellular phone.

A mobile phone refers to a mobile phone in the same state as a new product, which has been formally opened to receive a subsidy from a radio operator, but has been terminated after three months (the termination period).

② In a company where the Defendant was working, the Defendant prohibited the purchase of stolen or lost mobile phones, and had the Defendant check whether it was stolen or lost through the cell phone identification number, etc. at the Internet wrap, called “terminal self-sufficiency system.”

③ In purchasing a cell phone, the Defendant confirmed whether the cell phone was stolen or lost through the package of the aforementioned “surbine self-sufficiency system”, and there was no mobile phone on which a report on theft or loss was filed among the instant cell phones.

This was due to the fact that the nominal owner at least three months had been treated as having been normally paid since A opened.

In light of the above circumstances, it is deemed that the Defendant underwent a certain process of confirmation on a part of the mobile phone (in particular, referred to as “complic phone”).