The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The mobile phone acquired by the Defendant is limited to 197 units, and the remainder of 145 units (No. 13, 14, 16, and 18 units attached to the judgment of the court of original instance) exceed the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On August 22, 2013, G, the upper line of the Defendant, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, was seized a book on which approximately 200 smartphones were recorded in the face of sexual harassment and clothes gambling room at the time of emergency arrest (Evidence No. 147 pages), and G, based on the above book from June 2, 2013 to August 2013, specified the date of acquisition of smartphones from the Defendant and R from the date of acquisition, number of acquired smartphones, purchase price, etc. in detail (Evidence No. 230 to 232 of the evidence record), and stated detailed details on the same date (Evidence No. 233 to 260 of the evidence record), and the Defendant also purchased smartphones from an investigative agency to sell it at the same time and at the same time and at the same place, and the Defendant’s allegation is not consistent with the reasons for the aforementioned crime No. 371 to 3747 of the smartphones acquisition.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant has no particular criminal record other than the record of juvenile protective disposition regarding the allegation of unfair sentencing, and that in the case of the Defendant’s violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the game machine, etc. is both confiscated.

However, in the case of the crime of acquiring stolens, the defendant purchased smartphones fromO, etc. and sold them to G.