The Defendant is a person who is engaged in sales of precious metals in the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

On December 20, 2012, the Defendant purchased one gold boom, which is the possession of the Buddhist wounded, who he stolen from E, from the above gold bank.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the sales business of precious metals, has a duty of care to confirm clearly whether he/she is a person with the same photograph as E on his/her resident registration certificate and whether he/she is a person with the same person, and to verify whether he/she is stolen by well examining the process of acquisition, motive for sale, and demand price suitable for transaction

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen, acquired the stolen by purchasing one set of money from KRW 2,100,000,000.

The Defendant, including that, from around that time to March 13, 2013, neglected to pay attention as indicated in the list of offenses and acquired stolen property by neglecting judgment on the stolen property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to entries in the duplicate of DNA purchase books;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 364 and 362 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts (generally and collectively select a fine);

1. A fine not exceeding one million won to be imposed on the suspension of sentence (50,000 won per day on the confinement in the workhouse);

1. Although it is evident that the transaction amount on criminal facts recognized as the legal reasons for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Pronouncement has not been written, this case, however, is a case in which the defendant voluntarily reported the other party to the police for the reason that it was suspected that the other party was stolen at the end of the transaction repeated, and thus the investigation on the remaining transaction was conducted together, and the other party used another person's identification card, and thus, the defendant of the old age is a defendant.