beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who purchases a heavy mobile phone and sells it to exporters while operating a mobile phone store.
On March 8, 2017, the Defendant purchased one of the LG options LTE3 smartphones from the I operating of the mobile phone store in the “D” located in the “D,” to which the victim F cannot know the market price that was stolen by the victim F, and from March 31, 2017, from the I operating the mobile phone store in the “H mobile phone store” located in the “H mobile phone store in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, where the victim J cannot know the market price that was stolen, respectively.
In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the business of trading the mobile phone, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen or lost, such as ascertaining the personal information of the seller, the process of acquisition of the mobile phone, motive for sale, and whether he/she is in conformity with the market price of the transaction, and inquiring about the theft or loss at the mobile phone self-sufficiency site.
Nevertheless, as long as the Defendant neglected the above care and neglected to judge the stolen water, the Defendant purchased 2 smartphone 50,000 won and 10,000 won each of the above LG options LET3 smartphones.
Ultimately, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence as above.
Summary of Evidence
1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police officer in relation to E and I;
1. Written statements of damage from J;
1. An investigation report (replacement of a victim statement) [The defendant, as an intermediate trading company that purchases a mobile phone from an agency and sells it again to an exporting company, is trusted and purchased from the agency as a primary and secondary transaction company that confirms the theft, and return 100% to the defendant if it is found that it was stolen by re-verification from the exporting company. Thus, the defendant has no duty of care to confirm whether it was stolen, and one day trading volume of the defendant.