The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around August 7, 2010, the Defendant acquired stolens by receiving KRW 50,00,00,000, embezzled by C, under the name of the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (D) under the name of the Defendant, with knowledge of the fact that it was stolen at a place of non-place of sale.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel had no intention to acquire stolen property since C had known that they remitted the stolen money to the defendant.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, C received KRW 143,00,000 from E, the wife, and the Defendant, to the Busan Bank account in the name of the above company, and deposited KRW 100,000 for the above company, on May 14, 2010. On June 2, 2010, C transferred KRW 143,00,000 to C’s Busan Bank account in the name of the above company, and the Defendant urged C to return the investment amount after a meeting around June 8, 2010, and received KRW 50,00,000 from the Busan Bank account in the name of the Defendant to the Agricultural Bank account in the name of the Defendant around August 7, 2010, C received KRW 50,000 from the Busan Bank account in the name of the Defendant, and C transferred the amount to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, and C did not transfer the amount to the Defendant’s account.

The above evidence and the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, namely, ① the Defendant did not participate in the operation and investment of the above company any longer by urging C to return the investment funds continuously after the meeting on June 8, 2010, and ② E stated that C was aware of the fact of transferring money from the above company’s account to the personal account when meeting on June 8, 2010, and it was stated that C was aware of the fact that it was a financial institution, and it was not consistent, and C did not clearly state that it was aware of the above fact of transfer. In light of the above, the Defendant’s statement alone alone was insufficient.