The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Determination as to Defendant B and C

A. On July 15, 2013, the Defendants filed an appeal against the lower judgment on July 15, 2013, and filed an appeal against Defendant B and C; Defendant C was served with each of the instant courts on August 7, 2013; and Defendant C was unable to submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the grounds for appeal from each of the said courts on August 27, 2013; Defendant B and C did not contain any description of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal; and further, the record cannot be found ex

The Defendants’ appeal shall be dismissed by decision under Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the Defendants’ appeal is rendered with respect to prosecutor’s appeal, it shall be dismissed by judgment as follows:

B. 1) The Prosecutor’s appeal by the lower court’s summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of KRW 7 million) is unreasonable as it is too uneasible. 2) The Defendant B committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution. In light of the Defendants’ scale and method of the instant crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not weak.

However, Defendant C is the primary offender, and Defendant B has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendants repent and reflect the mistake of the crime of this case.

In full view of the amount of benefits actually acquired by the Defendants through the instant crime and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the records and pleadings, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s appeal

A. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The fact that the defendant's act of purchasing smartphones, such as the crime of this case, is more likely to further promote and cause the crime, while the number of cell phones acquired by the crime of this case is not significant, and recently, the act of purchasing smartphones, such as the crime of this case, is likely to promote and induce the crime.