A. Defendant A is an employee in the “E” located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D Building 501, and is engaged in the pawned Credit Business.

Around 19:00 on July 12, 2013, the Defendant purchased one 650 Kamera in an amount equivalent to KRW 600,00 in the market value of the victim G ownership that he stolen from F from F in the pawnpo.

In this case, there was a duty of care to confirm whether the defendant engaged in the pawned credit business is stolen or not by ascertaining the F's personal information and other information, and by properly examining the details of the acquisition of the camera, the motive for the sale, and the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen, purchased the above 100,000 won of the price by negligence.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence as above.

B. Defendant B is a person who operates the pawned Credit Business under the trade name called “E” in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D Building 501.

The defendant above A.

As described in the paragraph, A, a 650D Kamera acquired from F, was kept in the pawned Hall.

In this case, there was a duty of care to verify whether the defendant engaged in the business of pawned Art, the F's personal information, the details of the acquisition of the camera, the motive of the sale, and the price suitable for the transaction price, etc. are stolen in good faith.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above care and neglected the judgment on the stolen, thereby keeping one of the above Kameras in the name of the senior police officer on July 2013 until the sale to the senior police officer on the name of the senior police officer.

Accordingly, the Defendant kept stolens by occupational negligence as above.

2. According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, Defendant A received the instant camera from F as security, and F.