업무상과실장물취득
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Although credibility in the testimony of E by the witness E of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the facts charged of this case can be fully recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.
Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in sales and purchase of precious metals with the trade name of D from the 1st floor of the Speaker’s Government.
On May 19, 2015, the Defendant purchased 14K gold 1,40,00 won at the market price of the victim F, which he stolen from E in the gold room.
In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in sales of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify and describe the personal information of E, etc., and to verify whether he/she is stolen or not by properly examining the process of acquisition of the gold Ban.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to pay the above attention and neglected to judge the stolen water, but purchased a half of the above water amounting to 47,000 Won by negligence.
Ultimately, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence as above.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) sold to the Defendant around that time, two gold 14K gold balls, three gold balls of 18K and 14K gold balls of 18K, which were stolen from F on May 19, 2015 in the course of the investigation and trial by E; and (b) around that time, the Defendant sold one of 14K gold booms of 18K.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the E’s statement lacks consistency and falls short of credibility, and that other gold sales were not the Defendant. In addition, the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
1 E at the time of the initial police investigation on June 9, 2015, 3 to 3 to 4 gold gings, 3 gold gings, 1 gold gings, and gings, “gold and gold gings,” in which the highestest amount of gold gings is inserted.