The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant believed the awareness of H that the Defendant would sell in advance the iron bars left at the site, and the establishment of industry has been established to not ask the source at the time of the transaction of the iron bars. As such, the Defendant breached the duty of care in the course of performing duties.

subsection (b) of this section.

Sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable to impose punishment (3 million won) by the lower court.

Judgment

In fact, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, based on the following circumstances acknowledged as the result of legitimate examination of evidence, found that there was a circumstance to suspect whether the defendant was a stolen at the time of arranging the transaction of the instant steel bars, and even if so, it can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant neglected to verify the fact that the defendant arranged the

The Defendant’s assertion to the same effect as the grounds for the instant appeal was rejected.

The terms and conditions of transaction, such as "I's name shall be entered in the receipt of the iron bars, I's name shall be traded only in cash, I's tax invoice shall not be received, and I shall return the transaction statement to I," are in itself abnormal.

In addition, the iron bars offered by the defendant was traded at the price of 10 won to 20 won per Kg, compared to the market price.

Therefore, the obligation of the defendant to verify the source of steel bars or the actual selling intention of the seller is more strongly required.

The fact that the defendant arranged the transaction was immediately released from the withdrawal company, and the acceptance certificate was already printed with the person in charge and the destination, so it was sufficiently possible for the defendant to confirm whether the transaction was a normal transaction.

Nevertheless, without taking such confirmation procedures, the Defendant traded the price lower than the market price while accepting and implementing all such abnormal transaction conditions as seen above.

H, which introduced the instant steel bars to the Defendant, was a normal steel bars.