The appeal is dismissed.

Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant believed that A, who was aware of the original fact, purchased plastic materials at a place where A was ingested with plastic materials, and asked A to confirm the identity and the source and details of the goods, and then purchased plastic materials owned by A, the victim F, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “victim F,” “the victim company”), the Defendant did not neglect his duty of care in the course of performing his duties.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment without prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of normal goods from the victimized Company in 2011, the Defendant visited the victimized Company’s factory through the introduction of A and consulted with the person in charge; (ii) since 2012, at the time of the purchase of stolen goods by A, the Defendant did not go through the procedures to verify the source of the goods; and (iii) the transaction between the Defendant and A was made in the form of depositing plastic materials that were stolen into the Defendant’s factory at one night, and depositing the price according to the unilaterally designated price of the Defendant into the Defendant’s wife’s account (Evidence No. 39,41,164-190 of the evidence record). (iii) the Defendant had been aware that it was difficult to view it as a general form of trade; and (iii) the Defendant had been supplied a large amount of goods identical to the Defendant’s handling from the victimized Company’s employee (Evidence No. 87). 10k or f.