The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged against Defendant B cannot be deemed to be specified, and the above Defendant did not recognize that it was an stolen at the time of purchasing mobile phones.

Defendant

B’s defense counsel asserted in the statement of grounds of appeal that “the court below’s determination that the above defendant is the general responsibility of the organization dealing with stolen goods is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts,” and the written judgment of the court below does not contain the aforementioned determination, so the above assertion is to the effect that “the above defendant shall be deemed as the total responsibility of the organization dealing with stolen goods and it is unreasonable to determine the sentence against the above defendant.”

B. The defendants' punishment (one year of imprisonment for each of the defendants A, B: one and half years of imprisonment for each of the defendants C, and D) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The facts charged should be specified by specifying the date and time, place, and method of a crime. As such, the time and time of a crime should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with the time and time of double prosecution or prescription, and the purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged by such elements is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime are distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date and time, place, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the extent mentioned above, and if it is deemed that the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s right to defense, the contents

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1680 delivered on December 9, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939 delivered on October 11, 2002, etc.). We examine the Defendant B.