When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On October 28, 2015, at around 19:00, the Defendant acquired stolen goods from a person who is unable to know his name on the front road of the Dart located in the ideology-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Seoul, by purchasing at least 2.1 million won of the market price of the victim E-owned by the Defendant, who was stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Each police statement of E and G;

1. Certificate of disuse;

1. Details of the call submitted by the suspect;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (Attachment of a CCTV image extractor);

1. Relevant Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant purchased 124CC beams owned by the victim with low-to-low-to-low-to-low-to-low-water, but they did not have the intention of acquiring stolen goods.

2. In the crime of acquiring stolen goods on the market, it is not required that the perception of stolen goods is a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt as to whether it is a stolen, and whether or not it was known that it is a stolen, shall be recognized in consideration of the identity of the possessor of the stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1968 delivered on January 20, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 99Do3590 delivered on September 5, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 delivered on December 9, 2004, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court are as follows: (i) the mobile phone number of the person who used to sell Orababain to him was not aware of his personal information, and (ii) it was exchanged with it.