The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles F, it was naturally difficult for the Defendant to doubt that the process of acquiring the instant camera (hereinafter “the instant camera”) and the process of destroying the packaging gambling, which the Defendant explained to the Defendant, was the stolen goods, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant camera was the stolen goods, and the Defendant confirmed F’s contact details, motive for sale, etc., and received F’s identification cards, and the Defendant’s purchase price of the instant camera cannot be deemed to be considerably less than the market price, according to the following: (a) the Defendant was deemed to have fulfilled the duty of care required for the Defendant at the time of purchasing the instant camera from F; (b) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in the sales of electronic equipment in the name of “C” from the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 8th floor.

around 22:08 on May 23, 2019, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 2.2 million in the market price of the victim’s name in which he stolen from F, as Kwikset service.

In such cases, a person engaged in the sales of electronic equipment has a duty of care to verify whether the person is stolen by examining well the details of the acquisition of electronic equipment, the motive for the sale, the demand for the price suitable for the transaction price, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and purchased the above 1,370,000 won by negligence as long as he neglected the judgment on the stolen goods.

Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.