The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated in the investigative agency that the Defendant purchased the copper wire from F in around 2012, and in light of the details of the deposit account and the monetary content with F submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant can be deemed to have purchased the copper wire as above, and the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant’s statement in the investigative agency was based on mistake is difficult to believe, and thus, the charge of finding the Defendant guilty of purchasing the copper wire that the Defendant stolen through occupational negligence was guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment of the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal for the change in indictment in the trial of the party, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in this case ex officio and the prosecutor examined the following facts charged in the trial of the party.

The judgment of the court below was no longer maintained because it applied for permission to amend the bill of indictment as stated in the same paragraph, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

However, even if there is such reason for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the changed facts charged.

B. The revised Defendant is a person who operates a secondhand shop with the trade name “Ist Prize” in J at J in Jinju-si.

On October 5, 2012, the Defendant purchased crypt electric wires from F from the above high water surface.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the physical business, has a duty of care to verify whether the goods are stolen by examining well the details of the acquisition of electric wires, the motive for the sale, the method of sale, and the price suitable for the transaction price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above care and neglected the judgment on the stolen goods, thereby thefting from F due to occupational negligence.