업무상과실장물취득
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged in the instant case, since the Defendant was negligent in not knowing that the lubric oil in this case was stolen.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have acquired stolen goods in breach of his duty of care as a car center operator, without confirming his personal information, the process of acquiring the lux oil, the reason for sale, etc., while purchasing the lux oil in this case from N, which was introduced by N, the defendant, who was the part of the car center operator of the defendant's operation. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant acquired stolen goods in breach of his duty of care as a car center operator. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.