A. In fact, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant safe was stolen, and the Defendant was left alone on the body in front of the Defendant’s house, but did not keep it, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the Defendant’s circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant has retired from office due to the instant case’s sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact: (a) The identification of stolen goods is not required to be a conclusive perception; and (b) it is sufficient to have dolusent perception as to the degree of doubt as to whether the stolen goods were aware of the fact that they are stolen goods; and (c) it is inevitable to recognize it in consideration of the identity of the possessor of stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 94Do1968 delivered on January 20, 1995). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① in the course of transporting the instant safe to be pushed down at port and transporting it to be pushed up with the Defendant, the Defendant stated that “I have no knowledge, if you know, I have to know,” or “I have to treat the stolen goods as soon as possible.”

진술하는 점, ② 피고인과 C은 이 사건 금고를 빠루로 파손하는 비정상적인 방법을 사용하여 열었던 점, ③ 피고인 스스로도 금고를 깰 때 그 안에 서류 뭉치와 돌 반지 등이 들어 있어 약간 의심스러운 생각이 들었다고

(4) On December 2, 2015, the date and time of committing the crime described in the facts charged, the Defendant found G’s gold page operated by G in order to sell precious metal, such as 18K galms and halfs, and G’s book.