(b) The degree of the duty of care when the owner of the pawned article intends to pawn the article;

B. In a case where the pawnbroker intends to pawn the goods, he has the duty of care to inquire into the address, name, occupation, age, the source, characteristic of the goods, motive for pawning, etc., and whether or not the possessor corresponding to his status is the owner of the pawned goods. In a case where he has neglected to do so, even though his resident registration certificate was confirmed, he cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of acquiring the stolen goods due to negligence in the course of his duty.

Defendant 2 and 3 shall be included in the imprisonment of 70 days each of the days of detention pending trial after the appeal.

Examining the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's decision that recognized the crime of robbery in the first instance trial is justifiable and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of theory, and the protocol of examination of the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer as an advisor of the theory of the lawsuit does not have been admitted as evidence for the crime of robbery in the present case. In addition, according to the records, the court below's decision on the punishment of the court below is clear that the defendant committed robbery 4 times habitually, robbery 2 times, robbery th time, robbery th time, special larceny 6 times, etc., and all other circumstances indicated in the records, in particular, robbery rape was committed by a child, and in light of the fact that the court below committed robbery in the first instance trial and the victim's injury appraisal, impact on society, etc., the defendant's criminal liability is extremely heavy, and it is not acknowledged that the defendant's punishment is extremely unfair.

All arguments are groundless.

2. The defendant and the defendant-appellant (hereinafter the defendant-appellant) and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

According to the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and expressed his intent to rape in the victim's chest while committing robbery 2-B at the time of the first trial, "at the time of the first trial, knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife," and Defendant 1 was found to have been raped with the victim.

3. The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the defendant-appellant (hereinafter the defendant-appellant) and his defense counsel are also examined.

In this case where the court below's argument that the amount of punishment imposed by the court below is inappropriate because it did not reduce the amount of punishment on the ground that it belongs to the free discretion of the court below, and the argument that the amount of punishment imposed by the court below is excessive shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act in this case where the court below sentenced 7 years of imprisonment. The argument is groundless.

4. Defendant 4’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case where a pawnbroker intends to pawn the goods, he shall have a duty of care to inquire into the address, name, occupation, age, origin of the goods, characteristics of the goods, motive for pawning, etc., and his status, and in the case of pawning the stolen goods without knowledge of the circumstances, he shall not be exempted from the liability for the acquisition of the stolen goods. Under the above opinion, the court below is justified in finding the facts of the crime of acquisition of the stolen goods by occupational negligence, in light of the legal principles as to the acquisition of the stolen goods by occupational negligence, and the judgment of the court below is justified, in light of the legal principles as to the acquisition of the stolen goods by occupational negligence, in the case where the defendant 2 was demoted from 2 to 30, while he was taking the pawn, and his age is merely 20 years away from the pawn, and it is inappropriate for him to carry the pawn system by occupational negligence, by taking into account his occupation, characteristics of the goods.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the inclusion of detention days after the appeal against Defendant 3 and 4.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)