The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) around 16:00 on January 28, 2013, the Defendant purchased 15 mobile phone units from D, “D” business owner E, and confirmed the debtor’s identification card, business registration certificate, and loan contract with the aforementioned mobile phone units as security; and (b) confirmed whether the aforementioned mobile phone units were lost or stolen; and (c) purchased the aforementioned mobile phone units at an appropriate market price; and (d) at the time of purchase of the aforementioned mobile phone units, the Defendant cannot be deemed as occupationally engaged in purchasing the aforementioned mobile phone units.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the instant mobile phone machine is information and communications-related articles owned by the victim, namely, (a) L was entrusted with the aforementioned mobile phone machine as a security on three occasions from December 26, 2012 to December 27, 2012 and borrowed a total of KRW 4,750,000 from “D” bus,” and (b) the Defendant purchased the aforementioned mobile phone machine at the time, and subsequently used it for selling profits; (c) the said pawnn business owner E, who did not redeem the aforementioned borrowed machine within the agreed period, sold it to the Defendant on January 28, 2013; (c) the instant mobile phone machine was not opened with a new product; and (d) the instant mobile phone machine was not opened with a new product; (e) the Defendant purchased the instant mobile phone machine’s contact name and contact information with the victim; and (d) the Defendant purchased the instant mobile phone machine’s contact information and communications business registration certificate with the victim.