The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds of appeal Nos. H and F’s respective statements and transaction methods, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant knowingly purchased the stolen article from H with the knowledge of the fact that it is a stolen article of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the Defendant: (a) was a person who operates a “E” competition store located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; and (b) was willing to purchase an internal test upon receiving a proposal from H, a business operator of the H, a store operated by the F, to sell the F-owned internal test that he embezzled, at a lower price.

around July 7, 2012, the Defendant purchased 30,00 an grhyeong 14,440,00 won in total from H at the Defendant’s house located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, 1,305 Dong 1403, and acquired 22,00 won in total from February 3, 2012 to February 22, 2013, with the knowledge of the fact that it is a stolen, as shown in the attached list of crimes, in the same manner, purchase of 30,00 won in total from February 3, 2012 to February 22, 2013 (hereinafter “the interior of this case”).

B. The judgment of the court below held that the Defendant purchased the instant intra-party border test from G business employees from G business employees is not different from that of ordinary G G, but is not an exceptional to the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the records, namely, ① the relationship between the Defendant and H, ② the relationship between the Defendant and the price at a large quantity of goods in commercial transactions, ② it is not impossible to determine the price at a rate of 40-50% or to be contrary to the commercial transaction norms, ③ the Defendant’s motive for purchasing is possible to receive, ③ the Defendant withdraws cash from the cash payment at a point of time near the city where the Plaintiff was mainly at each transaction, and paid it to H.