beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal
A. The instant crime of habituality is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality, even though the Defendant committed several short-term crimes in order to raise money as soon as possible, and thus cannot be seen as the realization of the habitive wall for the acquisition of stolen property. However, the lower court’s recognition of habituality is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality in the crime of habitual property acquisition.
B. The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court determined that the instant crime was caused by the habition inherent in the Defendant, by taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in light of the evidence adopted by the lower court. A) Defendant and Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the lower judgment shared their roles and purchased mobile phones totaled of 50 thefts or lost including those stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment at least seven times during the remaining one month, on the premise that they sold them to Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the lower court.
B) The Defendant and A paid an advertising cost of KRW 1 million on behalf of the Internet Advertising Agency, and posted an advertisement to purchase the lost phone continuously and repeatedly on the Internet car page and Blogs through the Internet Advertising Agency. For the instant crime, the Defendant and A purchased a mobile phone from V, etc. at a price calculated by adding a profit of KRW 50,000 to the purchase price delivered by C, which is calculated by adding a profit of KRW 50,000 to the purchase price delivered by C.
C has known the purchase price of the mobile phone with 20 to 30 mobile phones as well as the mobile phone actually traded to the defendant.
In addition, C is the situation of mobile phones such as the defendant, liquid damage and defects.