beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.02.01 2017노1409

상습장물취득등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant can be found to have acquired electronic devices, such as Nowon-gu, in the instant case, or acquired such devices in breach of duty of care, with knowledge that the defendant was stolen.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the Defendant appears to have acquired 50% or less of the normal price of the new products of Nowon-gu, etc., or the lower price of the new products of Nowon-gu, etc., but the Defendant’s business of purchasing the new products of Nowon-gu, etc. and resale them as a valuable product is difficult to readily conclude that the above price is unfairly salt, even when considering the degree of mathy or possibility of resale at the time of resale. Thus, the Defendant’s acquisition at the above price alone is recognized as stolen.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to conjecte, and the fact that the defendant's request for the purchase of the acquired goods and stolen goods is likely to bring about to the police station or to refuse the transaction by reporting to the police station. In light of the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, it is proven that the defendant acquired the Nowon-do, etc. of this case while recognizing that the defendant was stolen.

It is difficult to see and otherwise there is no evidence.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. That the part of the acquisition of office fixtures (2016 highest 2266 highest 2016 highest 2016 highest 2020 highest 2017 highest 2020) was completed the procedure for verifying the identity of the seller

Even if there are special circumstances to suspect whether a stolen is a stolen, or if there were more detailed attention to the nature and type of the purchased product, the identity of the seller, etc., the stolen is a stolen by neglecting this even though he could have known that the product is a stolen.