logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.29 2017고정1400
업무상과실장물취득
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person engaged in sales of precious metals with the trade name “D” in Busan Jung-gu.

On February 4, 2017, the Defendant purchased two 3,960,000 won in total at the market price of the victim F, which he stolen from E, from the room, around 11:00.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in sales of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify his/her personal information and enter the details of acquisition of precious metals, and to verify whether he/she is stolen or not.

Nevertheless, the Defendant acquired two stolens in the amount of KRW 3,960,000 by neglecting the above care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen water.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of each police investigation report (such as attaching a copy of the E-Interrogation protocol, investigating the disposal of stolen goods, verifying the details of disposal of stolen goods, attaching a document of remittance of stolen goods, etc.) and defense counsel's assertion that there was no negligence in the course of business since the defendant fulfilled the ordinary duty of care required for precious metal dealers at the time of purchase of the instant frame.

the fact that the operator of the goldproof has gone through the process of verifying the identity of the seller when purchasing precious metal.

Even if there are special circumstances to suspect whether an article is a stolen or not, or if a more detailed attention was paid to the nature and type of the article purchased and the identity of the seller, etc. of the article, the crime of acquiring the stolen goods is established if the article was purchased without knowledge of its existence due to his/her negligence, even though he/she could have known that the article is a stolen. Whether there are special circumstances to suspect whether the article is a stolen or not or not or whether it was known that the article is a stolen is a stolen or not, the person who sells the article, status, nature and type of the article, and price.

arrow