The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of all the circumstances supporting the statements of F and H and each of the above statements, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the full acknowledgement of the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who engages in a business exporting mobile phones with mutual emphasis as “E”.

From July 2012 to November 2012, the Defendant purchased a large quantity of stolen or lost mobile phone equipment from around 10,000 to around 26,00,000 from the said F to the same day, the Defendant purchased approximately 80,000 mobile phone equipment used to purchase approximately 80,00 mobile phone equipment used to purchase approximately 26,00,00 from the said F, used to purchase approximately 10,000 mobile phone equipment used to be stolen or lost from the taxi platform near the Dong-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the Dong area, through G, a subordinate goods business entity, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually acquired stolen goods.

B. The lower court’s judgment held as follows: (a) the witness F, H’s statement in the second trial record; (b) each statement in the third prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendant against the Defendant at the prosecution; (c) each statement in the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant F; (d) each statement in the police officer’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendant with respect to F; (e) smartphone purchase unit price table; and (e) smartphone purchase status and transaction file; (b) among them, each statement in F is not consistent with the Defendant’s transaction period; and (c) there is no transaction data to support the statement; and (d) there is no objective data.