All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Of the litigation costs in the trial, the part arising against Defendant B and C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (Defendant C) The mobile phone of this case was killed as stolen.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The court below changed the facts charged against Defendant B and C into the acquisition of stolen property through occupational negligence, which purchased the instant mobile phone without properly verifying whether it was a stolen property or not. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that Defendant C did not confirm the source of the instant mobile phone in the course of purchasing the instant mobile phone 40 mobile phone that Defendant A stolen with Defendant B while operating the instant mobile phone 40 mobile phone, which is a heavy mobile phone dealer, or that Defendant C did not confirm whether it was stolen or lost to the agency. Since Defendant C was a heavy mobile phone dealer and did not fulfill its duty of care, the above assertion by Defendant C is without merit.

B. In full view of the following: (a) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments of unreasonable sentencing and the victim’s damage were not recovered; and (b) Defendant B and C had the same criminal record, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 191(1), 190(1), and 186(1) main text of the Criminal Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs against Defendants B and C.