Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. Facts charged [2017 Highest 807 - Defendants]

A. Defendant A is a person who operates a mobile phone agency with the trade name of “F” in the Gu E in Chang-si, Jin-si.

On December 6, 2016, the Defendant purchased one of J3 mobile phones in Samsung G gallon, the market value of the victim H, which he stolen from G from the above F agency, was equivalent to 231,000 won.

In such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to verify whether the defendant is stolen by checking the personal information of G, and by checking the details of the acquisition of the goods, the motive for the sale, and the demand for the price suitable for the transaction price.

However, Defendant 1 purchased the aforementioned mobile phone at KRW 20,00 by negligence, unless he neglected to make a judgment on the stolen water without neglecting such care, and purchased from G in the same way on December 12, 2016 one of the LGG 5 mobile phones equivalent to KRW 821,700, the victim’s market price, from G, in the amount of KRW 100,00, and acquired each of the stolen goods.

B. Defendant B is a person who operates a mobile phone agency with the trade name of “J” in Sungwon-gu Itel 303, Sungwon-si.

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant purchased one cell phone unit in order to gallon in Samsung Mallon, which is equivalent to KRW 968,00,00 at the market price of the victim H, which he stolen from G from the above J agency.

In such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to verify whether the defendant is stolen by checking the personal information of G, and by checking the details of the acquisition of the goods, the motive for the sale, and the demand for the price suitable for the transaction price.

However, Defendant 1 purchased the aforementioned mobile phone at KRW 370,00 by negligence while neglecting the judgment on the stolen water without due care, and acquired one set of five mobile phones from G from December 6, 2016 at a price equivalent to KRW 821,500, which is the victim’s market price, by the same method as in December 6, 2016.

(c).