A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence 175 and 176 shall be confiscated.

Nos. 1 to 174, seized evidence, respectively.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who runs a business of selling domestically lost or stolen mobile phones and exporting them to China.

At around 16:00 on August 25, 201, the Defendant acquired approximately 1.7 million won from August 25, 2012, including the acquisition of stolen goods from around 1.7 million won, even though he/she was aware of the fact that prices for smartphone 15, such as gallonS, lost or stolen mobile phones, from D, and acquired stolen goods habitually by acquiring KRW 5,840,00, totaling KRW 1,097,80,000 from August 22, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, from August 24, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the police officers in relation to E, F, D, or G, or a copy of such protocol;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Investigation report (attaching text messages);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the fact that the number and size of each crime in the judgment is remarkably heavy and that the method of crime is specialized;

1. Relevant Articles 5-4 (4), 363 and 362 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Selection of limited imprisonment for the crime;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Some of the reasons for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Return Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to an act committed in the course of the crime in this case; (b) the Defendant has no record of the same kind of punishment; and (c) the Defendant’s

Meanwhile, the Defendant acquired a cell phone device with at least 5,800 stolens for a year, sold most of the seized articles overseas, etc., and profits earned from the Defendant’s criminal act or the Defendant’s criminal act was enormous. Even if the Defendant did not directly commit the act of theft, it is possible to purchase stolen articles.