If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the trade of valuable goods with the trade name called “D” in Mapopo City C and 104.

1. Around 07:00 on July 9, 2013, the Defendant purchased electric wires equivalent to KRW 1,000,000 (25m in thickness, 70m in length, 100km in weight) of the market value of the victim F, which he stolen from E, on the water surface of the above “D”.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the trade of used goods, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information, etc. of E, while properly examining the process of acquiring the above electric wire, motive for the sale, and the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen, acquired the stolen by purchasing the above electric wire at the price of KRW 500,000,000.

2. On July 11, 2013, at around 07:00, the Defendant purchased from the above “D” on the body of “D,” the 3,000,000 GV-50,000 (300m) at the market price of the victim G ownership that he stolen from E, and acquired the above electric wire by purchasing the stolen goods by neglecting his duty of care as described in the above paragraph (1), while neglecting his duty of care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen goods, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1).

3. Around 07:00 on July 14, 2013, the Defendant purchased from the above “D” on the body of “D” and acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 3,000,000 at the market value of GV-50,000 (300m) owned by the victim G, which he stolen from E, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), while neglecting his duty of care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen goods, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), by neglecting his duty of care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen goods.

4. At around 07:00 on August 5, 2013, the Defendant purchased electric wires and cables equivalent to KRW 15,000,000 at the market price of the victim H owned by E, which he stolen from the above “D” on the water surface, and neglected his duty of care as referred to in the above paragraph (1) and neglected his decision on the stolen goods, thereby neglecting his duty of care, the Defendant appears to be erroneous in writing in writing in the indictment of KRW 1,510,000.