1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

On August 2013, the Defendant knowingly purchased at least 64 mobile phoness from C, etc. for about 48 times in total from around the early 2013 to December 20, 2013, from around 418, to around 48 times in the line of subway No. 418, the Defendant, who was aware of the fact that the name that he stolen was a stolen of “S2” portable phone, which was owned by the victim, with knowledge of the fact that it was a stolen article.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired stolen goods habitually.

Summary of Evidence

1. Crimes indicated in judgment;

(a) Statement by the defendant in court;

(b)each police interrogation protocol (including copies thereof) for D, E, F, G, H, I, J, C, K, L, M, N,O, and P;

(c) Statement by the police about Q Q;

(d) Each statement of R and S;

2. In light of the following: (a) the habitual Defendant committed the instant crime more than 48 times repeatedly; and (b) the method of committing the instant crime and the transfer of his attitude are similar, it is recognized that the Defendant has a habit of acquiring stolen goods.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 363 (1) and Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act (including provisions) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution;

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for one year to ten years; and

2. As to the crime of this case, no sentencing guidelines are set for the crime of this case (the crime of habitual acquisition of stolen goods under Article 363 of the Criminal Act is deemed not to be included in the crime of stolen goods, for which the sentencing guidelines are set). The case is that the defendant purchases and acquires stolen, even though he/she is aware that at least 64 portable telephones (the smartphone) were habitually distributed over about 4 months during about 4 months, about a total of about 68 times during the period, and acquires stolen goods, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not considerably good, and there are many times of the crime.