If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant living together with C (Death on May 28, 2013) and conspired to sell the stolen goods by dividing them into the Defendant and the stolen goods, and C, through the Internet hosting site, by disposing of precious metals received from the stolen goods business operators, by disposing of them, and then receiving 10% of the disposal amount.

On January 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sold 6,073,420 won and arranged for the transfer of stolen goods by unclaimed winners in the name of unclaimed winners by selling 256,00 won in the above gold banks in the face of KRW 256,00 with knowledge of the fact that precious metals C possessed in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, are stolen goods; and (b) sold 2,500 won in the above gold banks in the face of KRW 30,00,000; and (c) sold 6,073,420 won in accordance with the list

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to purchase account books;

1. Article 365(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 365(1) and 30 of the same Act, the choice of fines for the crime, and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant and his defense counsel alleged that he had known that he had known about the stolen property as the stolen property. However, in the crime of stolen property, the awareness of stolen property is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perception to the degree of doubt that he was aware of the stolen property. Whether he was aware of the stolen property or not is a stolen property should be recognized by taking into account the identity of the possessor of stolen property, the nature of the stolen property, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.

Therefore, the following circumstances, which were duly adopted and examined by this Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Oct. 13, 2006) are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, C did not have a certain occupation and did not have economic leave, and the defendant living together with C is in a relationship with C.