The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, without knowing the circumstances that are stolen, purchased the instant construction materials, and thus, did not have any intention to acquire stolens (deficiencies), and even if it is recognized as a crime of acquiring stolens, the lower court’s punishment (fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

(F) In the case of the charge of the charge of the stolen in determining the mistake of facts, the perception of the stolen is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perception to the degree of doubt that the stolen is ambiguous. Whether the stolen was aware of the fact that it is an stolen or not shall be recognized by taking into account the identity of the possessor of the stolen, the nature of the stolen, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 Decided December 9, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6084 Decided October 13, 2006; etc.) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① thie-party E, etc. sold stolen construction materials to high-ranking P, Q, Defendant, etc., and the above P made a large volume of construction materials (in the case of P, one time more than 800 through 90 gs, one hundred to 90 g in each case) by the investigative agency, and the above construction materials were high-priced and used by the construction business operator, and the above Q is not suspected of theft, and the above construction materials were also purchased from 00 or 60 gs to 100 gs to 5 gs to 10 gs to 30 gs to 5 gs to 10 gs to s to 5 gs to s to be purchased.