logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.09.23 2016고정1398
업무상과실장물취득
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who runs a mobile phone sales business without office.

On January 14, 2016, at around 22:30, the Defendant purchased a smartphone 64 device from a phone 6-phone 64 device, which is the market price managed by the victim F (40 years old) F (40 years old) who stolen D apartment from E on the street in front of 106 Dong-gu Seoul Central Government, Seoul.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the sales of the heavy mobile phone, has a duty of care to confirm whether he/she is a stolen or not by properly examining the source of the smartphone that he/she purchases and the motive for the sale.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above care and neglecting the determination on the stolen water, acquired stolen goods at a total of five times from January 14, 2016 to February 10:55, 2016, by purchasing 600,000 won of smartphone 60,000 won and acquiring stolen goods at a total of five times from January 14, 2016 to February 22:30, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of suspect interrogation of the police against E or the accused;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 364 and 362 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is a space between E and about two years, an employee of the mobile phone agency, and the defendant, at the time of the purchase of each mobile phone of this case, asked E, a seller of each mobile phone at the time of the purchase of the mobile phone of this case, about the source of each mobile phone and the details of the possession of each mobile phone, and confirmed whether the mobile phone's unique identification number was lost, stolen, or used.

arrow