beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the mobile phone was stolen at the time of purchase of the mobile phone from E around November 22, 2012, as stated in the judgment of the court below, as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the absence of the intention of acquisition of stolen goods, the judgment of the court below which convicted him of this part of the facts charged
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Recognizing the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant stated at the investigative agency that “I would bring about the same mobile phone or a arche” before the instant crime was committed by E, and the Defendant stated at the investigative agency that “I would have known that E would be a stolen or stolen object by purchasing a heavy mobile phone from E, but did not confirm whether E would be a stolen or stolen object,” and the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant did not confirm whether E would be a stolen object. After purchasing a mobile phone from E, the Defendant asked E to make the method of initializing the mobile phone after purchasing the mobile phone from E, and then asked E would bring the Defendant a mobile phone again after deducting the core chips from the mobile phone, and then bring the mobile phone again to E, and the Defendant would be said to be “I would know that you would know what you would know,” after purchasing the mobile phone from E, it can be recognized that E would have known or could have known that the mobile phone was owned by E at the time of the purchase of the mobile phone.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant acquired the cell phone owned by the victim F with the knowledge of the fact that he was a stolen property is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.
(b).