The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the following circumstances, the emergency arrest against the defendant is unlawful: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) and misunderstanding of legal principles.

Since the cell phones Nos. 2 through 9 of crime sight table was seized after emergency arrest, it is not admissible as evidence of illegal collection.

At the time of arrest of the defendant, the police officer's right to appoint defense counsel and the right to refuse to make statements was notified, but the summary of the offense, the reason for arrest was not notified.

The personal information of the defendant was confirmed prior to the urgent arrest, and the police could be arrested upon the issuance of a warrant of arrest from October 30, 2016 to November 5, 2016, such as search and investigation by several times from October 30 to November 5, 2016. Thus, it does not constitute an urgent arrest requirement under Article 200-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the requirement of urgency is not met.

The defendant was urgently arrested due to the suspicion of the acquisition of stolen property, and during the investigation process, it was found that the statutory penalty is not a charge of the acquisition of stolen property but a crime of the acquisition of stolen property for business purpose that is not an urgent arrest due to imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year, and was prosecuted as a crime of the acquisition of stolen property.

Considering the following circumstances, there was no fact that the defendant committed the crime by the sequences in the crime list, and there was proof that there was no reasonable doubt.

shall not be deemed to exist.

D The statement made by D does not constitute the uncertainty of the location of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, solely on the ground that D is not subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a trial after the statement by the witness in the police. Therefore, it is inadmissible.

The crime sight No. 1 is the fact that D sells a shoulder cell phone, and the defendant has no memory to purchase a shoulder cell phone.

In addition, the model of gallon Nos. 1 in one crime List is not visible.

Criminal inundation No. 2 is the defendant directly purchased from the victim F, not the stolen.

In addition, the table 2, 3, and 4 of one crime list are reliable.