Even if a person who operates a pawned article has gone through the process of verifying the ownership of the pawned article in the course of taking the pawned article into custody, there are special circumstances to suspect whether the article is a stolen, or if he/she has taken a more detailed care of the nature and type of the pawned article, the identity of the owner of the pawned article, etc., even though he/she could have known that the article is a stolen, the crime of acquisition of the stolen article by occupational negligence is established if he/she has neglected to do so. Whether there are special circumstances to suspect whether the article is a stolen or whether it is a stolen article should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the identity and status of the owner of the pawned article, nature and type of the article, price of the pawned article, objective relation between the owner of the

(2) On April 25, 2003, the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court, based on the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) the Plaintiff: (c) the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s money to refund the obligation; (b) the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s address or contact number, etc. to the Plaintiff immediately before the execution of the sale procedure for the said camera; and (d) the Defendant offered the instant camera as security and borrowed KRW 30 million at a relatively high price on March 201; and (b) the Defendant did not recover the amount of KRW 157 million,000,000 in total; and (c) the Defendant’s CD or contact number, etc. was indicated in the process of checking the Plaintiff’s address or contact number.