The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cited the instant mobile phone with the intent to receive treatment of hive disc, etc. as a result of being confined in the detention house, and rather cited it as an intention of unlawful acquisition.

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the intent of illegal acquisition is recognized, the victim appears to have diminished the floor while putting the cell phone on his hand. This should be viewed as leaving the victim's possession in a state where the victim did not go against the victim's intention. Moreover, since the Defendant did not bring the instant mobile phone under the conviction that the victim is the victim, it should be regarded as the crime of embezzlement of stolen property.

C. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. on September 12, 2014 in the Changwon District Court closely supporting the defendant on September 4, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2014. Since the crime of this case was committed before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, since the crime of this case is a crime committed before the above judgment is committed, the above crime of this case and the concurrent crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are deemed to be concurrent crimes under Article 39(

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, because the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the above judgment.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant committed the instant crime.