At around 11:30 on May 21, 2015, the Defendant purchased a part of the Montreal-based one half of KRW 2 million at the market price of the victim F owned by the Defendant, which was stolen by E, from the Defendant’s operation C in Young-gu D2, Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

In such cases, although a person engaged in sales of precious metals has a duty of care to verify whether or not he/she has been stolen by taking into account the details of the seller’s acquisition of precious metals, details of sales, and personal information of the seller, the Defendant neglected to do so and acquired stolen goods by purchasing at least 9,30,000 won.

2. Determination

(a) It is deemed that the operator of a room has gone through the procedures for verifying the identity of a seller when purchasing precious metal;

Even if there are special circumstances to suspect whether a stolen product is a stolen or not, and if the product was purchased without knowledge of its existence due to negligence in spite of the fact that it was known that it was a stolen, the crime of acquiring water from the head of the office in charge of business shall be established. Whether there are special circumstances to suspect whether the product is a stolen or not or not, or whether the product was known as a stolen, shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the name and status of the seller, the nature and type of the product, the nature and price of the product, the objective relation between the seller and the seller, and the speech and behavior of the seller (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do348, Apr. 25, 2003). B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, E, by entering a 10 A.M. or Kmond on the day of the instant case and visiting the guarantee certificate operated by the Defendant, thereby checking whether the product was a stolen, and the Defendant directly visiting the Emon certificate and its resident registration certificate.