The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, inasmuch as there was no occupational negligence by performing the duty of care required for the precious metal dealer when purchasing gold gals from D (hereinafter “gold gals of this case”). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (3 million won in penalty) on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(a) It is deemed that the operator of a room has gone through a procedure to confirm the identity of the seller when purchasing precious metal;

Even if there are special circumstances to suspect whether the stolen goods are stolen or not, or if a more detailed attention was paid to the seller's identity, the nature and type of the purchased goods and the identity, etc. of the seller, the crime of acquiring the stolen goods is established in the course of business in a case where the goods were purchased and acquired without knowledge of the stolen goods due to his/her negligence even though they could have known that they are stolen goods. Whether there are special circumstances to suspect whether the goods are stolen or not or not or whether the goods could be known as stolen goods should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the name and status of the seller, the nature and type of the goods, the nature and price of the goods, the objective relation between the seller and the goods, and the seller's speech and behavior (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do348, Apr. 25, 2003).

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles of the defendant and defense counsel.