Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2015. 8. 10. 서울 중구 C 3 층 피고인이 종업원으로 근무하는 ‘D’ 중고 명품 매장에서 E으로부터 그가 절취한 시가 35만 원 상당의 루 이비 통 숄더백 가방 1개, 시가 25만 원 상당의 구 찌 토트백 1개를 매수하게 되었다.

In such cases, the Defendant, who is engaged in the sale of double-life bags, wanting to sell two or more female bags, and even if there was a duty of care to verify whether a male E has been stolen by well examining the motive for such example sale, the process of acquiring the above bags, and the price suitable for the transaction price, etc., the Defendant could pay 10,000 won for the above two bags by negligence, which neglected to make a judgment on the stolen water while neglecting it.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of the prosecution against E, and a protocol concerning the interrogation of the police;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Protocol of seizure (182 pages of evidence record);

1. Photographs of each damaged article;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV afforestation;

1. Relevant Article 364 of the Criminal Act, Articles 362 (1) and 362 of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant: (a) confirmed his/her identity by confirming his/her face with the identification card of E; (b) asked the process of acquiring a well-known item; and (c) deposited the sales price calculated according to the internal standards of the prescribed store into the E himself/herself account; and (d) left the transaction data; and (c) fulfilled all the duty of care to be performed as a medium-sized and long-term seller.

2. In the judgment of the Defendant, a seller of used-names identical to the Defendant can easily sell used-names with high-priced, high-priced, and high-ranking, compared to the size of larcenys.