beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.04.17 2013고정2724

업무상과실장물취득

Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person engaged in the business of returning a heavy cell phone with the following profits that he/she purchased:

Around 16:00 on January 28, 2013, the Defendant purchased 15,000,000 gallon 13 vehicles in total, gallon jugno 21 vehicles, gallon 3 vehicles, gallon jugno 21 vehicles, gallon 3 vehicles, e.g., e., gallon 3 vehicles, e., e., g. g., e., g., g., g., g. g., g. g. g., g. g., g. g., g., g. g., g

Since the aforementioned mobile phones were a new product that was sealed in boxes and did not open to the public, the Defendant, a business of purchasing heavy mobile phones, had a duty of care to confirm whether the aforementioned mobile phones were stolen, such as contact with the phone number of the radio operator’s agents attached to the cell phone box, in order to find out whether the aforementioned mobile phones were owned by the radio operator’s agencies or are related to the crime.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above duty of care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen, purchased the mobile phone in total of KRW 5,100,000 by negligence.

Ultimately, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Examination protocol of suspect E by the prosecution;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of F and E;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Relevant Article 364 of the Criminal Act and Articles 362 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant fulfilled their duty of care to confirm whether the defendant was stolen or not, but the records of this case are recognized.