All of the appeals by the prosecutor against the defendant B and the appeal by the defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the resident registration number of Defendant A entered in the account book by Defendant B (Defendant B) is different from the real resident registration number of Defendant A, and that the old cable brought by Defendant A was in the entirety of clothes, and that there was considerable room to suspect that it was stolen at the 13 times of sales frequency water, etc., the above Defendant cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his duty of care to avoid purchasing stolens.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below found Defendant B not guilty on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime on the grounds of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below concerning the acquisition of goods through occupational negligence regarding Defendant B. In light of the records of this case and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, a thorough comparison of the above reasoning of the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and even after examining the grounds for appeal asserted by the prosecutor, it is judged that there is no error of misunderstanding of facts (the resident registration number of Defendant A recorded in the book of Defendant B, contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, seems to coincide with the resident registration number of the actual Defendant A)

B. Although Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A made a confession of all the crimes, the above Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to imprisonment or a suspended sentence over several occasions for the same kind of crime even before the instant case, and the amount of damage in this case was not so significant and did not take measures to recover from damage, and the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and details leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime.