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

The Defendant is a person who runs a mobile phone sales store with the trade name “C” in Ansan-si B.

On July 18, 2011, the Defendant contacted F with F, an employee of F, who was an employee of F, through “D,” which is a major cell phone trading Internet site at the above mobile phone sales store, and purchased two cell phoness equivalent to KRW 69,600 at the stolen market price.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in trading of a heavy cell phone is stolen by accurately ascertaining the F personal information and recording the F in the account book, and by checking the process of acquisition of the aforementioned mobile phone, motive for sale, and price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing two cellular phone units in KRW 780,000 due to negligence when he neglected his duty of care on whether they are stolen or not.

In addition, from around that time to December 7, 2012, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 250,640,00 of a total of 372 cell phones, a stolen, as shown in the attached crime list, and acquired stolen goods by negligence in the course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning F (including attached documents);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 364 of the Criminal Act and Articles 362 (1) (general provisions) and Article 362 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for the crime;

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is a case where the defendant acquired a collection of approximately KRW 250 million over several times by occupational negligence, and the amount of the stolen acquired by the defendant is disadvantageous to the situation where the amount of the stolen goods is large, etc., and the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and the defendant has no penalty power exceeding the fine.