The judgment below

The guilty portion against the Defendants is reversed.

The defendants are not guilty of acquiring stolen goods.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were unaware of the fact that the mobile phone purchased from E was stolen.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants were the primary offenders, and the assessment of the amount of damages is unexploded based on the ex-factory price, etc., the sentence sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended sentence in August, respectively) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the victim G in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is an employee of the H error store operated by the victim G in the same mobile phone store, and the defendant A and the defendant B are a person who operates the middle cell phone store.

E around 18:00 on December 23, 2014, around 18:0, the victim G in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is a mobile phone store with a total of 136 mobile phones worth 124,020,60 won of the market price owned by the victim, which was kept in the same room, were stored in the inner part of 69,600 won, and was stolen by means of galloning the victim's cell phone with a single unit of S5 black mobile phone stored in the above store. From the above day to June 13, 2015, the victim was habitually stolen 136 mobile phones worth 124,020,60 won of the market price owned by the victim from the above day to June 13, 2015, as shown in the daily list of crimes.

1) On December 2014, Defendants A and B conspiredd to purchase a mobile phone from E at the mobile phone sales store operated by Defendant A on the second floor of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, with the focus of the trade name of “J” operated by Defendant A, which was in the second floor of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and agreed to resell the mobile phone to exporters and to divide the profits therefrom into half.

The Defendants purchased 345,00 won from around December 23, 2014 to around March 2015, 2015, even though they knew of the fact that the gallon 1 cost of the victim G, which was stolen by E, was stolen from the above sales store around December 23, 2014.