beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.
Defendant
B The above fine.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A
A. On July 20, 2014, around 15:00 on July 20, 2014, each of the Defendant committed a crime against victims who are multiple female employees: (a) committed a theft of 11 victims on a total of 11 occasions during the period from around 15:0 to February 3, 2015, by having the victim E, who was an female employee of the Hongsung-gun Hong-gun Hong-gun, "Dda", left the vehicle by having the victim go off the vehicle, let the victim go off the vehicle, let the victim go off the vehicle, let the victim go off the vehicle, and cut off the vehicle at an unfolding market price, which the victim left on the vehicle.
B. From September 6, 2014, around 09:00 on September 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim F at the construction site located G in Asan-si; and (b) with the amount of KRW 380,000 at a single market price, the victim’s electric dynamics owned by the Defendant.
C. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant committed each crime against the Victim H and F: (a) around 04:24, 2015, on the top of the “Co., Ltd. I” on the part of the “Co., Ltd.,” in the operation of the Victim H located in Busan-si; (b) approximately KRW 10,000,000 at the market price of 10,000,000, i.e., the victim H-owned L/W, and stolen the victims’ property, respectively.
2. Defendant B is a person who is engaged in the sales of high water with the trade name “L” from ASEAN.
The Defendant from “L” around 06:09 on January 21, 2015 to “L” 1.
The amount of KRW 10,000,000 at the market price of 1,000 gh, such as the Guluri owned by the victim H, as described in the paragraph.
In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the business of selling and buying used goods, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information A, etc., while properly examining the process of acquiring used goods, motive for selling used goods, and the price suitable for the transaction price.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to make a judgment on stolens, such as neglecting to verify the above personal information.