The remainder of the judgment of the court below excluding the application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below 1, and the judgment of the court below 2 and 3.

1. On August 10, 2015, the judgment of the court below No. 3, which found Defendant B guilty of the fraud of Defendant B, and sentenced Defendant B guilty of the remainder of the facts charged.

However, Defendant B filed an appeal only against the conviction except the above acquittal portion among the judgment of the court below of the third instance, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal, so the above acquittal portion was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the conviction of the first, second and third court's judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment for 4 months and 3 years: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) sell 6 parts of the phone on January 7, 2015.

As a result, the AR's identification card has been reproduced, prepared, and confirmed whether it was lost or stolen through the Internet site called "DA", the duty of care to confirm whether it was stolen was performed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the first instance judgment: the suspended sentence of 2 years in August and the fine of 1 million won in the imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

(c)

In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (defendant A) and the fact that it is impossible to confirm whether a mobile phone was lost or stolen through the Internet site called "DA" in the case of the non-public cell phone, the court below acquitted Defendant A of the acquisition of stolen goods, which are the primary facts charged, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it.