The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the chairperson of a DNA company that conducts cultural heritage trade business.

On January 20, 2012, the Defendant purchased stolens in KRW 10 million with knowledge of the fact that F is a stolen property owned by the victim G (legal name Hgr, and KRW 21 million in the market price, at the third floor office of the above D company located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the doubt of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5114, Jan. 27, 2004).

In light of the fact that the defendant has the same criminal records, such as violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and the acquisition of stolens, and the defendant has been engaged in the cultural heritage sale business for several hundred and twenty years, there is doubt as to whether the defendant knew or could have known that the cultural heritage value of the present cultural heritage of this case was well known, and that it was very exceptional that an individual collected such cultural heritage.

C. However, there is only a statement made in F's investigative agency (in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the purport that the defendant's disposal was necessary because he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was stolen, and that there was no talking about the process of the collection of the works). The following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows: ① the current cultural heritage information of the Cultural Heritage Administration was not registered as stolen cultural heritage; ② the defendant sent the present Si to an auction in which many unspecified persons participate; ② the fact of display was notified through a press agency. ③