All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal principle (Defendant B) merely committed the instant crime because it is difficult for Defendant B to serve as a family, and there is no habit of acquiring stolen property.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants on the lower court’s grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles, habitually “Habitual acquisition of stolen property” refers to the nature of the offender as a habiting wall repeatedly acquiring stolen property. In determining the existence of such habiting wall, the criminal records of the acquisition of stolen property are important data to determine whether there is a criminal record of the acquisition of stolen property, but even if there is no criminal record of the acquisition of stolen property, where the habiting wall of the acquisition of stolen property is recognized in consideration of all the circumstances, such as recovery of the crime, means, methods, and motives, habituality

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6955, Feb. 8, 2007). (2), Defendant B purchased 142 smartphones from the taxi engineers for about three months by waiting to sell smartphones lost to Defendant A and sending the signal in mobile light to the taxi drivers, and then taking the smartphones into consideration. Defendant B purchased 142 smartphones from the taxi engineers for about three months. The crime of this case by Defendant B is deemed to be based on the habitive wall for the acquisition of stolen goods.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the following: (a) all of the sentencing conditions and the Defendants agreed with some victims, but most of the victims’ damages have not been recovered as to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing as to the instant case’s records and arguments, each sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, 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.