The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was not known that the pine trees sold to L by the Z (hereinafter “instant pine trees”) were stolen.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge of the conciliation of stolen property of this case is erroneous in mistake of facts.

2. Determination:

A. In the crime of stolen property, the perception of stolen is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt as to whether it is a stolen. Whether it was known that it is a stolen or not should be recognized in consideration of the identity of the possessor of stolen property, the nature of the stolen or not, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6084 Decided October 13, 2006, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant can be found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. Upon Eul's request from Eul to the effect that there is a good pine tree, the defendant found W forest land in Ansan-dong where the pine tree of this case was born, together with Eul, and then sold the pine of this case to L, who operated the AA landscape after digging out the pine of this case from the owner, and then sold KRW 20 million to the Z with the owner of the pine of this case without the shipment certificate. Since the defendant illegally extracted the pine of this case from Z, the defendant could file a complaint if he did not respond to the request for sale of KRW 20 million, the purchase price of the pine of this case at KRW 20 million, which was the purchase price of this case, the defendant received KRW 30 million from L to the investigation agency and then sold the pine of this case at KRW 30 million from the purchase price of this case at KRW 30 million.