logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.22 2013고정4481
업무상과실장물취득
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates a gold bank with the trade name of “D” in Kuri-si, and Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million in the Seoul Northern District Court on May 8, 2009 due to occupational stolen property acquisition at the Seoul Northern District Court, and operates a gold bank with the trade name of “F” from 1-8 in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

1. On May 5, 2013, Defendant A purchased from G (W, L, 196 children’s male-friendly H from G (W,) on May 5, 2013, the sum of the market price of the victim I’s 3,60,000 won owned by the Defendant and the Defendant purchased one, one gold-packt, and one gold-gu.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in sales of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information, etc. of G and by properly examining the details of acquisition of the relevant precious metals, the motive for sales, and the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above care and neglecting the determination on the stolen goods, acquired the stolen goods by purchasing 373,000 won in total in cash and purchasing one set of gold string, one gold string, one gold string, and one gold string.

2. At around 16:00 on May 7, 2013, Defendant B purchased 3 million won of the victim I’s market price owned by G from the “F” bank, which was the victim’s male and female H from G.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in sales of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information, etc. of G and by properly examining the details of acquisition of the relevant precious metals, the motive for sales, and the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above care and neglected the judgment on the stolen goods, but acquired the stolen goods by purchasing KRW 208,00 in cash by negligence in the course of business.

arrow