The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 200,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The judgment of the court on the erroneous determination of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant fulfilled his duty of care, such as harming the loss of the cell phone at the time of purchase, even though the cell phone of this case had never been dead at all, on the charge of stolen goods) and unfair sentencing

A. The crime of acquisition of stolen goods from occupational negligence is established when acquiring stolen goods from a mobile phone without knowledge of the circumstances, which are charged by occupational negligence. The first instance court lawfully adopted and investigated the evidence, i.e., the Defendant purchased three mobile phones owned by the victim F, who was stolen by E on August 13, 2012. The Defendant did not enter only the phone number in the purchase book but also did not change the identification number in the purchase book, even though he was found to have been aware of the intention to sell the mobile phone by telephone (E). The Defendant did not ask the Defendant of the previous mobile phone price without considering the characteristics of the mobile phone purchase, such as the location, time, and price of the mobile phone purchase, and the reason why the mobile phone was sold. ② On the other hand, the Defendant purchased one mobile phone from E to the mobile phone again on August 15, 2012, but did not ask the Defendant of the new mobile phone price after the purchase of the mobile phone.