A. Defendant A (1) around March 18, 2013, at the “E” page operated by the Defendant of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment shop 102 Dong 1114, the Defendant purchased one 14K gold stuff, which is a stolen stolen stolen object, and acquired the stolen goods by purchasing the 450,000 won, due to negligence in the course of duty, even though the Defendant had a duty of care to verify whether the stolen goods were stolen, as well as the reason for acquisition, motive for sale, and demand for the price suitable for the transaction rate, etc.

(2) On March 20, 2013, the Defendant purchased 780,000 won from the above “E” bank, and acquired 24 K K gold bags, which were stolen by F, due to occupational negligence, even though the Defendant had a duty of care to verify whether the goods were stolen, such as the process of acquisition, motive for sale, and demand for the price suitable for the transaction market.

B. On March 22, 2013, Defendant B purchased one gold-half of 24KK 5 money, a stolen stolen by Nonparty G and Defendant’s “H” bank of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, and acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 1,075,00 due to negligence in the course of business, even though he/she had a duty of care to verify whether he/she had the reason for acquisition, motive for sale, and demand the price suitable for the transaction price, etc.

2. Determination

A. In a case where precious metals are purchased in accordance with the price purchased by ordinary merchants, and if the seller’s name and address are verified at the time of purchase by demanding presentation of resident registration certificates to grasp the seller’s personal status, it cannot be readily concluded that the seller neglected the duty of care required for his/her business. Thus, the crime of acquisition of stolen property by occupational negligence is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do47, Mar. 22, 1983).

With respect to the instant case, the Ministry of Health and Welfare duly adopted and examined by this Court.