Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants, respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who is engaged in the sales business of high mobile phone devices against mobile phone sales stores in the Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and Defendant B is a person who engages in the sales business of mobile phone devices with the trade name of “E” in the second floor 213 of the D Building of the members of Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

1. On June 11, 2013, the Defendant acquired stolen goods from approximately 90-1 million won ( approximately 50-60% of the market price compared) while knowing that the market price acquired by G at “H’s mobile phone sales store operated by G” in Chungcheongnam-Nam-Nam-nam, is a stolen goods. From that time to January 11, 2014, the Defendant stated that the 115 mobile phone period, which is the cell phone sales store operated by G, was the total value of KRW 13.6 million, and that the above money was the damage amount in the facts charged.

However, the mobile phone machine acquired by the Defendants damage the sealed Stacks packed by G, and installed a core chip to cause a certain amount of multiple currency for a certain period required by each mobile carrier. Although it is the same as the new one, it is difficult to view that the property value of the digital equipment is the same as the mobile phone machine due to its characteristics as the new one, except for the fact that the sealing Stacks was damaged.

In addition, according to the evidence of the judgment, G seems to be 50-70% of the normal price of selling each of the above mobile phone devices to Defendant A.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the prosecutor’s assertion that, apart from the fact that the property value of the mobile phone acquired by G reaches KRW 13.6 million in total, the damage amount caused by the Defendants’ criminal act reaches KRW 13.6 million.

However, as long as the number of stolen goods acquired by the Defendants is specified, the prosecutor's assertion on the property value is not accepted.