Even though a pawnbroker has gone through the process of identification of pawned Articles under Article 15 of the pawned Articles Business Act, the crime of acquiring stolens in the course of business is established.

Even though a pawnbroker has gone through the process of identifying the owner of pawned article under Article 15 of the pawned article Business Act and Article 14 of its Enforcement Decree, if he has paid a more detailed attention to the nature and type of the pawned article, the identity of the owner of pawned article, etc. even though he could have known that the pawned article is a stolen, he may not be exempted from the liability for the acquisition of the stolen which is an occupational negligence if he neglected to do so even though he could have known that it is the pawned article.

Article 364 of the Criminal Act, Article 15 of the pawned Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1488 delivered on September 25, 1984

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Lee In-bok

Seoul High Court Decision 84No200 decided May 15, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

Even though a pawnbroker has gone through the process of identifying the owner of pawned article under Article 15 of the pawned article Business Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if he has paid more detailed attention to the recovery of pawned article, the nature and type of pawned article, the identity of the owner of pawned article, etc., even though he could have known that the pawned article is a stolen, he may not be exempted from the liability for the acquisition of the stolen article by occupational negligence in the event that he is pawned.

The court below's finding the defendants' acts of acquiring stolen property and taking measures against them to be a crime of acquisition of stolen property through occupational negligence is just and there is no error of law such as abuse of free will or misunderstanding of legal principles of acquisition of stolen property through occupational negligence, as argued in the arguments.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)