The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) When trading surplus steel bars, practices without asking the source or seller are formed, and there is no difference between the market price and the actual market price purchased by the Defendant and the Defendant’s negligence on duty.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.

Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the following facts: the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the facts indicated in the acceptance certificate, such as shipping date, quantity, and transferee, the steel bars of this case, which were directly shipped out from the steel company to the victim company, cannot be seen as the so-called "excess steel bars"; rather, there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that they are stolen goods, the judgment of the court below is justified to find the defendant guilty.

3. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant recognized that he acquired the iron bars owned by the victim three times, and the Defendant continuously neglected his duty of care to confirm whether the said steel bars were stolen during that period.

Therefore, even though the defendant's act of acquiring stolen goods by negligence is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, the court below held that each acquisition is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Based on the judgment, the punishment was set within the range of punishment for aggravated concurrent crimes.

The judgment of the court below shall not be maintained as it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio as above, and the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for another judgment】