The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not know the fact that the Baler of this case was the stolen goods, and did not fully take part in the process of disposing of the Baler, which is the stolen goods, but the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the case of the crime of stolen property, the perception of stolen property is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt that the stolen property is ambiguous, and whether or not the stolen is aware of the fact that it is the stolen property should be recognized in consideration of the identity of the stolen property possessor, the nature of the stolen property, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6084 delivered on October 13, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6084 delivered on October 13, 2006) are acknowledged by the investigative agency that the defendant was in receipt of a request from E to remove and direct contact with B and F, the main agent of the property, and received the price (Evidence No. 229-230 of the evidence record), and the defendant was in delivery to E. (2) the dismantling work was conducted at the parking lot where the defendant is the manager; ③ The defendant was investigated by the investigative agency and was aware that the E was stolen goods; ⑤ The defendant did not ask the defendant that he was aware of the stolen goods (Evidence evidence No. 52, 231 of the war record of this case, and the show that he was not aware of the fact that the show that he was not aware of the fact that he was the victim of this case.