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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On June 26, 2012, the Defendant received a request from D, E, and F to sell one gold sheet and one gold sheet equivalent to KRW 4,300,000 in total of the market value of the victim G ownership that D stolen from D, E, and F on the front of the “C” located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.

On June 26, 2012, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that he was the sale as well as the semi-owned goods, sold the amount of KRW 2,30,00,000 to J from the “K” operated by the J in the 10th century in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant assisted the transfer of stolen goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against D, E, F, and J;

1. Each police statement concerning L or G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning a copy of the high gold purchase ledger, a copy of the high gold sales ledger, and CCTV image photographs;

1. Article 362 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that he had different knowledge of the gold sheets, etc. entered in the facts constituting the stolen. However, in the crime of stolen property, the perception of stolen is not required to be a conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient to have dolusence to the degree of doubt that he/she was aware of the stolen property. Whether he/she was aware of the stolen property or not is a stolen property should be recognized by taking into account the identity of the possessor of the stolen property, the nature of the stolen property, the transaction cost

Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence of the above macroscopic body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6084, Oct. 13, 2006). In other words, the above Kuscopics, etc. are valuable goods to be acquired by juveniles, and the defendant merely believed the horses of D, etc., and it appears that the defendant did not sufficiently verify the source of the above Kuscopics, etc., and the background leading up to the defendant's knowledge of D, their relation with D, and their ages, etc., the defendant is the subject matter.