logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.04.11 2012고정4136
업무상과실장물취득
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

The defendant is a person who has been engaged in sales of precious metals at the store of purchase of precious metals in Busan Jung-gu, Busan.

On February 26, 2012, the Defendant purchased 18 K E, which was the victim E, that he stolen from D from D at the street store around 15:0 on February 26, 2012.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the sales business of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the identity, etc. of the seller and entering the details of acquisition, motive for sale, and demand the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such care and neglected to make a judgment on the stolen goods, but purchased a pair of 1,50,000 won in price by negligence.

Ultimately, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence as above.

Judgment

If there are special circumstances to suspect whether a person operating a metal has been a stolen in purchasing precious metal products even though he/she had gone through the process of identification by a seller, or if he/she has exercised more detailed care on the nature and kind of the purchased goods, the identity of the seller, etc. even though he/she could have known that the goods are stolen, the crime of acquiring stolen goods by occupational negligence shall be established if he/she purchased the stolen goods without knowledge of the circumstances, and whether there are special circumstances to suspect whether the goods are stolen or not, or whether the goods are stolen or not, shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as personal information and status of the seller, the nature and type of the goods, the objective relationship between the seller and the seller, the speech and behavior of the seller, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do348, Apr. 25, 2003). According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant is a woman of 43 years old who first found the Defendant’s gold bank on February 26, 2012.

arrow