beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal follows: (a) the Defendant did not confirm the acquisition process and sales motive while purchasing the mobile phone; (b) did not know the seller’s personal information; and (c) did not know the seller’s personal information; and (d) the Defendant could have easily known that the aforementioned mobile phone was stolen; and (b) the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the crime of acquisition of stolen property by occupational negligence was established, even though the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the fact.
2. The Defendant was a person who runs a specialized mobile wholesale business at around 15:0,00 as of August 2012, and purchased each of the instant facts charged from HTC mobile phones at the street near the 1-dong 1-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with the market price equivalent to KRW 700,000,000, the market price of the victim D, which he stolen from C, respectively, at around 15:0,000 and KRW 90,000.
In such a case, the Defendant, who is engaged in the business of trading the mobile phone, has a duty of care to confirm whether the Defendant is stolen by checking the personal information C, the process of acquiring the mobile phone, the motive for selling the mobile phone, and the price suitable for the transaction rate, etc., but the Defendant neglected such care and acquired the stolen goods by purchasing the two mobile phone in KRW 1.50,00 per unit by negligence, unless he neglected to determine whether the stolen goods are stolen
3. The judgment of the court below
A. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.
(1) The Defendant is Pakistan (Skistan) who acquired Korean nationality around 2005, and returned to the 6th cell phone store of the building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from November 201, and purchased a used mobile phone and returned to the 6th cell phone store of the building in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, and used to purchase a used mobile phone and return to the used mobile phone store of the used mobile phone. However, although the Defendant knows the basic words for conducting the mobile phone trading business, the Korean language is interpreted as an interpretation.