All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. In full view of the following: (a) comprehensively taking account of the names of telephone carriers carrying the grounds for appeal and the names of high-speed telephone exporters; and (b) the results of the execution of a warrant of search and seizure as to whether a report of loss or theft was filed against mail carriers; and (c) each of the instant portable phone calls (hereinafter “instant portable phone”) in attached Form 1 and 2 of the lower judgment constitutes stolen items; and (d) the Defendants obtained such information with the knowledge that the said portable phone was stolen.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendants A, B, and C engaged in the business of selling and selling mobile phone in the name of “N” from the government city M, and engaged in the business of selling and selling mobile phone in the name of “N”, the employees of Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant C returned to the sales store of the mobile phone and purchased heavy mobile phone, including stolen goods. Defendant A is responsible for the role of selling and selling the mobile phone, including stolen goods purchased by Defendant B, Defendant C, and employees in their name, and 35 percent of the remaining amount of money, excluding one million won as public funds, out of the profits accrued each month, was planned to divide the profits accrued from the mobile phone purchased by employees, including Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant C, into the ratio of profits accrued from the mobile phone purchased during each month.

The Defendants, as above, did not accurately verify the personal information of the seller and the source of the portable phone at the O office around August 13, 2013, in collusion with the employees in non-name, and without verifying the identity of the seller and the source of the portable phone, as shown in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment, from June 11, 2013 to February 12, 2014.