The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The time to return the instant money was delayed because there was no consensus on the method of returning the money, which is a stolen between the Defendant and the victim of mistake of facts, and the agreement on D, which is the principal offender, and the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to preserve stolen property finally.

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

2. Determination

A. The crime of keeping stolen property is established when keeping the stolen property in custody after being aware of the fact, which is a stolen in the judgment of mistake of facts, makes it difficult for the victim to exercise his/her legitimate right to request a return and maintains illegal property status.

In this regard, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1633, Oct. 13, 1987). Although an agreement with the victim was not reached smoothly, the agreement with the victim was not reached.

Considering the Defendant’s assertion that the return of the instant money to the local court of the Republic of Korea or to the local account of the Republic of Korea, such as deposit of the said money in the Republic of Korea or cash deposit of the said money into the local account of the Republic of Korea on the part of the victim, etc., it is not recognized that it was impossible for the Defendant to return stolens on the records of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant’

B. There is considerable amount of money stored by the Defendant in the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, which is disadvantageous to the victim’s damage caused by the Defendant’s crime.

However, the Defendant is a primary offender with no record of crime, and the relationship between D and his/her husband and wife as the principal offender is not only the blood relationship provided by Article 328(1) of the Criminal Act but also the criminal act of this case. The money kept by himself/herself on March 7, 2014 and April 29, 2014 is all deposited into the account of E Company and consumed all criminal proceeds.