Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who works as an employee at the Ethmp point of the victim D’s operation on the 1st floor in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si C building and the first floor.

On July 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) concluded the instant mobile phone store service at around 21:00; (b) held the head of the relevant store as a key; (c) brought up and stolen the phone 5 mobile phone value of KRW 814,00,00, the market value of the victim, which was kept in the said head of the said head of the said head; and (d) brought about a theft of KRW 32,443,40, total market value of the cell phone owned by the victim on 27 occasions from around the said day to March 6, 2015, including the first day of the Crimes List 1.

On March 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) purchased 34 mobile phones from July 2014 to March 21, 2015, including purchase of KRW 660,000 (opon 6) at the market price of the victim D (opon 6.60,000), which was owned by the said Party A, prior to the burial set forth in paragraph (1) of the same paragraph; and (b) acquired stolen 34 mobile phones from July 2014 to March 21, 2000, including purchase of KRW 6,60,000, from July 21, 2015 to March 21, 200, as shown in the attached Table 21,90,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the police and the interrogation of suspects to the prosecution against the defendant B (including questioning the defendant B);

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police and prosecutor with regard to D;

1. A criminal investigation report and a separate contract (List 21) / Defendant B had no intention to acquire stolen goods from among the Defendants

The argument is asserted.

In the crime of acquiring stolens, the perception of stolens is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt that the stolens are ambiguous, and whether or not the stolens have been aware of the fact that it is the stolens may be recognized by taking into account the identity of the stolens, the nature of the stolens, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on January 20, 1995).