The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the acquittal portion) is that the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 22 million after being aware of the fact that it is a stolen goods of KRW 40 million at the market price owned by the victim capital stock company that he/she embezzled from D around December 27, 2013.

2. As to this, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquired the instant vehicle with the knowledge of the fact that it is stolen.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the judgment of the first instance court which convicted the above facts charged was reversed, and the defendant was acquitted.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. In the crime of acquiring stolens, it is not required that the perception of stolens is a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusence as to the degree of doubt as to whether the stolen is aware of the fact that it is a stolen, and the issue of whether it is a stolen shall be recognized by taking into account the identity of the possessor of the stolens, the nature of the stolens, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004, etc.). B. According to the records, the following facts are revealed.

① The Defendant: (a) was a secondhand distributor who acquired a car with a prompt name and sold it to another person; (b) was well aware of the fact that the leased vehicle is owned by a leasing company and that it does not provide security or trade without following the lease succession; and (c) purchased the leased vehicle arbitrarily disposed of without the consent of the leasing company and was punished for the crime of acquiring stolen property.

② At the time of purchasing the instant vehicle from D, the Defendant was aware that the said vehicle was the leased vehicle, and that D did not obtain consent from the lessee or perform the lease succession procedure.

③ D The instant vehicle is located.