All of the appeals filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor F against the Defendant F are dismissed.

A. Improper argument of sentencing by Defendant A is unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year and two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and two years) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the prosecutor claiming the mistake of the facts against Defendant F, it can be acknowledged that Defendant F acquired the stolen goods by purchasing the gold bar, etc. by negligence as a result of neglecting his duty of care necessary for the sale of precious metals.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because the new sentencing data has not been submitted at the trial of the lower court regarding Defendant A’s unfair argument of sentencing. In full view of all the sentencing grounds presented by the lower court, the original judgment’s sentencing is within the scope of the discretion of sentencing assigned to the lower court, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too inappropriate for the lower court to have imposed the punishment

Therefore, Defendant A’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant F

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is Defendant F who is engaged in sales of precious metals with the trade name of T in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

Defendant

F around August 18, 2015, at the market price of the victim who was stolen by Defendant A from Defendant C in the room, the F purchased three Mmond half of the market price of the victim who was the victim J, and three Mond half of the market price of the non-victim owned by the victim.

In such cases, Defendant F, who is engaged in the sales business of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information of C, etc., and by examining the details of his/her counter-acquisition, the motive of sale, and whether he/she demands the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, Defendant F is negligent in paying the above attention to the water.