Defendants shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

The defendants are mother and child, and the defendant A found the vehicle that he operated is to purchase to the defendant B, who is the child of the breakdown.

Accordingly, Defendant B was introduced a Fenz car owned by the victim Matts Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”) (hereinafter “Defendant A”), a leased vehicle, which was leased by Defendant B lending money from Doz D and offered as security, at the mutual infinent coffee shop located in the French city (hereinafter “Seoul”) on August 2016. Defendant A also knew that the said vehicle was a leased vehicle owned by the victim company in the above D currency.

The Defendants, even though they are aware that the above vehicle was used as a stolen which was provided at will to D without the consent of the victim company and embezzled, wired the above vehicle to the accounts in the name of D on August 11, 2016, and KRW 19.5 million in total, and KRW 3.5 million in December 12 of the same month, and received the above vehicle from D.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire the stolen vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Some of the statements made by the police against the Defendants

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Investigation report (to have telephone conversations for witnesses);

1. Determination as to the defendants and their defense counsel's assertion, such as an application for financial products of a motor vehicle glag, a copy of a motor vehicle registration certificate, etc.

1. In the case of the crime of acquiring stolen goods, the perception of stolen goods is sufficient to understand the circumstances that the stolen goods are stolen, and it is not necessary to specifically identify the principal offender’s crime.

The perception of stolen property is not required to be conclusive, and it is sufficient to have dolusence as to the degree of doubt as to whether it is a stolen. Whether it is known of the stolen or not shall be recognized in consideration of the identity of the possessor of the stolen, the nature of the stolen or not, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (Supreme Court Decisions 9Do5275 delivered on March 24, 200; 9Do5275 delivered on December 24, 2004).