A. At around 13:00 on March 21, 2014, Defendant A: (a) placed one half of the pattern of finite (2.7) the market price of the victim H, which was stolen by G, at KRW 400,000 (2.7 money) at the “F” package operated by the Defendant in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) Defendant A acquired stolen goods by taking account of the following facts: (c) as a person engaged in pawnging business is not aware of the aforementioned precious metal, he/she is aware of the fact that the said precious metal is a harsh stolen; (d) the said G’s personal information, status, nature and type of goods, price, objective relation, speech and behavior, source, possession, etc. of the said G and goods; and (e) he/she has a duty of care to keep the stolen goods from acquiring the stolen goods.

B. At around 15:00 on March 21, 2014, Defendant B purchased one of the following points: (a) the Defendant’s “J” bank operated by the Defendant in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) the Defendant’s market price of 600,000,000 won (3.5,000,000 in the indictment for indictments of 3.2,000,000 won owned by the Victim K, which was stolen by G; (c) according to the account books in which Defendant B purchased the counter-ins, the weight of the counter-ins is recognized as 3.2, and there is no particular obstacle to the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense; and (d) the person engaged in the operation of the counter-ins is not aware of the foregoing precious metal, and thus, he purchased the counter-ins and purchased the counter-ins insul ins of the above G’s personal information, status, nature and type of goods, price, objective relevance, speech and circumstance of possession.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not constitute a crime of acquisition of stolen property through occupational negligence, since they fulfilled their duty of care at the time of purchase of each of the instant rebuttals from G.

3. Determination

(a) Predive metal merchants; and