The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, has the personal information and source to E, and contrary E’s testimony of the lower court is difficult to believe that it contradicts the statements made in the investigative agency.

The Defendant purchased Not North Korea, etc. from E at a reasonable price, and the E did not request E to purchase Not North Korea and mobile phones at a time, and Not North Korea and mobile phones, upon which E is requested to purchase trot North Korea and mobile phones with heavy heavy trade, did not have any circumstances to suspect that they are stolen because they are not at a higher price but at a higher price.

After all, the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care in purchasing Nowon-gu, etc. from E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the charge of this case is justifiable, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

A. E, which requested the Defendant to purchase a stolen lapt North Korea and a mobile phone, is consistent from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below, that the Defendant did not demand personal information, such as the name and contact address, or asked the source of the article.

Since the above E statements are made, the above E statements are sufficiently reliable.

Han Part E at the time of the prosecutor's investigation ( May 27, 2016), that at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, the defendant did not request the name or contact address of the defendant when the defendant visited the third place of the defendant, but did not inform the defendant thereof.

On the other hand, the court below stated (71 to 72 of the evidence record).