A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by a fine of two thousand won,00,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine shall not be paid.

Defendant

A is an employee of "I" operated by the victim H in Sungnam-si G in Sungnam-si, and Defendant B is a person who engages in the wholesale business of industrial products.

1. Defendant A, within around 07:30 on January 17, 2016, within the warehouse of “I”, and around KRW 440,000 on the aggregate market value of the victim’s possession held therein, Defendant A’s industrial products, such as cambling, coffee, coffee, beer, and spambling.

In addition, from the above date and time to October 28, 2016, approximately KRW 91,492,520 of the victim's property was stolen on a total of 76 occasions, as shown in Annex 1 list of crimes committed.

2. On January 17, 2016, Defendant B purchased products, such as 1,840,000 won, which were the market price owned by the victim who was stolen by A, and pel banks purchased products, such as canned forests, coffees, mixings, beers, and brochures.

In this case, there was a duty of care to confirm whether the defendant is an stolen or not by checking the personal information A, and on the other hand, it is necessary to confirm whether the defendant is an stolen or not, such as the process of acquisition of the article, motive for sale, and demand for the price suitable for

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and purchased 83,090,70 won in total from around 27 times from around 201 to July 31, 2016, as well as from around 920,000 won in total, the stolen goods worth KRW 83,090,940 in the market price of KRW 40,435,70 in total.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and the defendant B (part)

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A detailed statement of transactions in each bank account;

1. Each theft victim's details of deposits, stolen victim's photographs, and CCTV photographs at each crime scene (Defendant B and his/her defense counsel asserts that there is no occupational negligence on the acquisition of stolen goods against Defendant B.