The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant mobile phone device purchased from D was a stolen stolen or embezzled by D, and was aware that D was disposed of to the Defendant in the form of so-called “phone attachment” and “phone loan,” and thus, the crime of acquiring stolen goods is not established under the premise that D was aware that it was a 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. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) was based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, i.e., (i) the agency’s fraud as if D would open to customers normally; (ii) the mobile phone devices that were obtained and stored in accordance with the mobile phone sales consignment contract were arbitrarily disposed of to the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant was denied even though he was aware of the fact that D had tried to sell the unfolded horses, but he was aware of the other used mobile phone distributors; (iv) the Defendant would have sold the unfolded

On the other hand, D sold a mobile phone at the low level of 1 to 20,000 won in comparison with D's normal mobile phone market price, and 3) D disposed of a mobile phone without opening a mobile phone, entered a virtual phone number into a digital chip and requested a call occurrence request by the Defendant. The Defendant sent a large amount of mobile phone by inserting a core chip into a medium chip on the medium and medium chip so that the mobile chip is ordinarily opened and used, 4) the Defendant purchased a mobile phone in a state in which the Defendant did not open a package from D, and 5) the Defendant issued a mobile phone in 2013.