beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (Defendant E) The Defendant, on the ground that he was not illegal, did not acquire stolen goods in collusion with A, etc. by receiving daily allowances from a taxi driver on the ground that he was not illegal.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant E, and G: fine of 3 million won for each case) is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that Defendant E acquired stolen goods in collusion with A can be sufficiently recognized.
The crime of this case was organized and planned by dividing the roles of purchasing a lost mobile phone to the taxi engineer and the role of the intermediary line selling it by collecting and selling it. According to the A's prosecutor's statement, A, including Defendant E, provided prior education to the accomplices who are aware of the fact that the mobile phone is lost or stolen and the act to be taken when the investigation agency is arrested (Evidence No. 417, 418 of the Evidence Record).
Defendant
E also knew from A in advance that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was involved in the “Notice” and decided to purchase a mobile phone on the road, regardless of whether he was purchased thereafter, he was distributed KRW 70,000 per day with accomplices regardless of whether they were purchased (Evidence Records No. 187 through 189).
C. In light of the above circumstances, Defendant E took part in the purchase of lost mobile phones with the knowledge that the “Notice” was to purchase lost mobile phones.
It is reasonable to see that the above defendant's assertion that he was aware of "PR publicity" does not have any grounds to support such assertion.
Therefore, this part of Defendant E’s assertion is without merit.
3. The degree of participation in the case of Defendant E and G on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not much weighted.