A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs a mobile phone sales business with the trade name called “D” in Jinju City.

On August 19, 2014, the Defendant purchased KRW 1,020,00 in total with knowledge of the fact that the two cost of the mobile phone supplied by the injured party, SK Telecom, and received a normal delegation from the customer, as stated in the attached Table 1, from November 30, 2015, the Defendant purchased KRW 318,00 in total at 286,343,748, total market price of the mobile phone acquired by the damaged party, as described in the attached Table 2, from around 183 times until November 30, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired stolens.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. The application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Presentation of Details of Account Transactions by Suspect), investigation report (Securing FF financial data in this offense), investigation report (Attachment of F Fraud Bill), investigation report (Attachment of Additional Bill to F), investigation report (Supplementary Bill to F), investigation report (Revision to List of Crimes).

1. Relevant Article 362 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of the observation of protection and the community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the crime of acquiring stolen property is not established, since he did not know that his mobile phone purchased by himself was stolen.

2. In the crime of acquiring stolen goods, it is not required that the perception of stolen goods is a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to do so to the extent of doubt that the stolen is ambiguous, and whether or not it has been aware of the fact that it is a stolen, shall be recognized in consideration of the identity of the possessor of the stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, the transaction cost and other circumstances.