The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is difficult to view that the Defendant was engaged in the sales business of precious metals and fulfilled its duty of care in light of the following: (a) the Defendant did not carefully verify the details of the acquisition of the Ban from E while purchasing the Ban from E; (b) the background, occupation, address, and speech.

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court is difficult to view that the Defendant had a duty of care to verify the seller’s personal information and the details of the sale, as well as the seller’s occupation, import, and whether the reflector was a gift gift to a female-friendly organization, etc., and there are special circumstances to suspect that the Damond price of the instant case is a stolen property.

The defendant was found not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant violated the duty of care required for the purchase of precious metals.

If the court below cited the reasons for the judgment of innocence as the reasons for the judgment of innocence and did not additionally submit evidence to prove the facts charged of this case in the court below, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, and therefore the prosecutor's above argument is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.