The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the Defendants neglected the duty of care to verify whether the mobile phone was normally terminated, whether the nominal owner sold the mobile phone, etc., and acquired stolen goods by purchasing 29 cell phoness, which are stolen goods, when the Defendants opened to a specific name and opened to a specific person in the course of operating a medium and long-term mobile phone purchasing business.

2. The lower court did not make any effort to confirm the source of the mobile phone, the reason for sale, and the seller’s legitimate authority to sell the mobile phone while engaging in the business of purchasing the mobile phone for a considerable period of time, or to inquire about whether the Defendants are ordinarily opened and opened according to the real will of the nominal owner.

In light of the foregoing, the first instance judgment was reversed, and the conviction was pronounced.

3. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The record reveals the following circumstances.

① The Defendants have purchased a heavy mobile phone from non-individual sales stores or agents, and the instant mobile phone also appears to have been purchased as such.

② The Defendants consistently asserted that the instant mobile phone was sold after the opening of the instant mobile phone in practice for the purpose of receiving the so-called rebates from mobile carriers. The Defendants consistently asserted that such assertion was false. However, there is no evidence or circumstance suggesting that such assertion was false.

③ Defendants were stolen or lost to a seller while purchasing a heavy cell phone.