The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for eight months, each of the defendants A shall be punished.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant 1) when Defendant C purchased a mobile phone from H, the number of mobile phones, and the details of the previous criminal offense, etc., the crime of acquiring stolen property of this case does not constitute a crime of acquiring stolen property of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is not recognized as habitually. Therefore, the Defendant A did not have a direct verification of the mobile phone at the time of transaction.

In addition to the fact that the defendant had no record of purchasing the former mobile phone, the fact that he purchased the relevant mobile phone at normal prices, and the fact that he/she has not used illegal means in the course of trading, there was no intention to acquire stolen goods.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants on the grounds that the sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants and the Prosecutor) is too unreasonable.

(Defendants) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C is too unhued and unreasonable.

(Public Prosecutor) 2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant C part A of the crime refers to any misunderstanding or tendency of a criminal offender, which does not constitute the essence of the act, and refers to the character that constitutes the character of the offender. As such, whether habituality exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character, occupation and environment of the offender, motive, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime.

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant committed the crime of acquiring stolen property of this case due to the realization of the habitive wall for acquiring stolen property of this case. Thus, the lower court’s determination recognizing habitualness is justifiable.

(1) The defendant is unfit for committing a crime.