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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who engages in precious metal trading business under the trade name of "C" in Ilyang-si, Busan Metropolitan City B.

The Defendant: (a) around 16:00 on February 24, 2020, at around 16:00, purchased 2 gold bars and 1 gold bars from the victim F that they stolen from D in that of the aforementioned precious metal; (b) in such a case, the Defendant: (c) confirmed and entered the personal information of D as a person engaged in the precious metal trading business; and (d) had a duty of care to purchase them after checking whether they were stolen or not, by taking into account well the details of the acquisition of gold bars and gold bars, and the motive for sale.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting such duty of care, acquired the stolen goods by purchasing the 5,892,00 won of the gold boom, etc. by negligence, when neglecting the judgment on the stolen goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to take photographs of the police interrogation protocol to partially investigate the suspect, a copy of the police interrogation protocol to partially investigate the suspect, and a copy of the police interrogation protocol to D to investigate the suspect's suspect (a gold CCTV video image analysis), internal investigation report (the counter-owner of the resident registration certificate to use the crime), a copy of the other person's resident registration certificate used by the suspect for investigation report (verification of the records of the same crime as the

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 364 and 362 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant fulfilled his/her duty of care in all business.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the following circumstances are revealed.

① In other words, D and E sold precious metal to the Defendant, as indicated in its reasoning, used Mascke at the time of the instant case as juveniles of 16 years of age, the Defendant’s face of another’s name, which he did not exercise, compared to the actual face of Mascke.