Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the pawning duties in the “C Lease” located in Daegu Suwon-gu B.

On November 7, 2019, at around 02:30, the Defendant was requested to lend three gold bars (10,7.85,6.9 money each, 7.9 money) equivalent to KRW 4.7 million at the market price of the victim E-owned by the Defendant, which he stolen from D, and one gold bullion (7.9 money) equivalent to KRW 15.30,000 at the market price.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the pawning business, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by properly examining the following: the details of the acquisition of the gold and the gold sheet, the details of the acquisition of the gold and the motive of the provision of security, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to pay such attention and neglected to determine whether the above gold gings and gold gings are the stolen goods, and neglected to determine whether the gold gings and gold gings were the stolen goods, and neglected to lend KRW 4.7 million to D, and received three gold gings and one gold gings as the collateral and kept the stolen goods.

Accordingly, the defendant stored stolen goods by occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Report on the occurrence of a written statement of the police statement E concerning the defendant's partial statement of the court, each of the police interrogation records, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 364 and 362 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a crime of this case where the defendant is engaged in the pawning duty and keeps stolens by occupational negligence, and the liability for such crime is less severe than that of the crime. The defendant partially recognized the crime, while serving as a pawning employee, the defendant verified the identity of D while working as a pawning employee, but it led to the crime of this case by neglecting the judgment on stolen property, and all damaged articles are all the victims.