2. In the transaction of high-priced heavy equipment the ownership of which is changed in accordance with the register of automobiles while engaging in the trade of heavy equipment, the Defendant could easily check the ownership relationship of heavy equipment by receiving the oil necessary for the transfer of ownership from the seller or broker or by confirming the register of automobiles with respect to the relevant heavy equipment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant purchased high-priced equipment from E at least eight times without taking such measures, and committed a crime of acquiring each of the stolens of this case. The Defendant’s negligence is not less than that of violating the duty of care, and the Defendant’s negligence is more easy to commit the embezzlement of E, and the victims’ damage has not been completely recovered up to the trial. In full view of various circumstances, including the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and method, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., and the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.