All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (Defendant B) Although Defendant B was unaware of whether the precious metal of this case was a stolen product at the time, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant B of mistake of facts is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed on the Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment and confiscation, Defendant B’s suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the part of Defendant B’s assertion of erroneous facts and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, Defendant B did not confirm the source of precious metal despite being aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had a large amount of thief power and maintained his livelihood with economic difficulties for not less than 20 years, and Defendant B had been punished for charge of stolen sales, not precious metal. If Defendant B had a normal precious metal, Defendant A requested sale of precious metal through precious metal shop. However, Defendant A was aware of the fact that he did not request sales of precious metal for women at the time of its operation, but rather requested sales of precious metal for her own operation. In full view of the fact that Defendant B knew of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had not been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had not been aware of it before the time of theft and that he had been aware of it.