The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

2. Determination

가. 공소사실 피고인은 2015. 8. 10. 서울 중구 C 3 층 피고인이 종업원으로 근무하는 ‘D’ 중고 명품 매장에서 E으로부터 그가 절취한 시가 35만 원 상당의 루 이비 통 숄더백 가방 1개, 시가 25만 원 상당의 구 찌 토트백 1개를 매수하게 되었다.

In such cases, the Defendant, who is engaged in the sale of double-life bags, wanting to sell two or more female bags, and despite the duty of care to verify whether or not they have been stolen by examining well the motive for such example sale, the developments leading up to the acquisition of the above bags, and the price suitable for the transaction price, etc., the Defendant could pay 10,000 won for the above two bags by negligence, which neglected to make a judgment on the stolen water while neglecting the duty of care.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence.

B. The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, held that the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care as a serious and long-term sales business entity.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment of the court, the charges were convicted.

(c)

In a case where a seller of a secondhand article has faithfully recorded all the purchase price and personal information of a seller confirmed by a resident registration certificate in a book kept after asking the place of purchase, timing of purchase, purchase price, and sale of the article, etc., the seller has a duty of care to verify the seller's status or the source of the article and the details of the possession.

It is difficult to view that it is difficult (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2982, Feb. 14, 1984, Feb. 14, 1984). A person engaged in the business of directly buying or selling, or selling, one of the second and second Masters.