The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired stolen goods by negligence in the course of business since he purchased the instant item from V, a wholesaler.

And the amount of the defendant's purchase is about 70 km, not about 98 km.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination - Grounds for misunderstanding of Facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaged in wholesale and retail business under the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government R and 128 of the first floor.

On July 14, 2014, at around 12:30, the Defendant purchased “98 kilograms” equivalent to KRW 78 million in the market price of Qu owned by the victim Qu, who stolen the said N, from the foregoing “S”, at the face of flath as an precious metal scrap engineer, from the foregoing “S”, which was inside the face value as a precious metal scrap engineer.

In such cases, the defendant engaged in the sales of precious metals has a duty of care to verify the source of precious metals and to verify the details of acquisition, the motive of sale and the price suitable for the transaction price, etc. in good faith, and to verify whether the goods are stolen.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by negligence, neglected the determination on the above stolen goods, acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 78 million at the market price of “98 kilograms,” which was brought by the above B, at KRW 41 million.

B. The lower court found Defendant C guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s partial statement, witness V’s partial statement, and prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the suspect against Defendant B, etc.

C. (1) On the other hand, the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., V consistently stated to the effect that “self-reliance was introduced only from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and that it was a transaction with the Defendant.”