Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On December 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D to sell two gold bars owned by the victim E, who was stolen by the Defendant; (b) received a request from D to sell the stolen goods; and (c) provided good offices, such as payment of KRW 275,000, which was received from “G” located in F on the same day on the same day, with knowledge that the stolen goods are stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Examination of suspect suspect regarding D by the prosecution;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on G purchase account books;

1. Relevant Article 362 (1) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant had precious metals of 2,919,00 won in total, including 2,00 won in total, 3,00,000 won in the market price, 2,919,000 won in 2,00,000,000 won in total, including 3,00,000,000 from around March 2, 2012, the Defendant reported the network outside of the Defendant, opened a window without a correction device, and intrudes on the inside and outside of the bank, and 18,00,000 won in 18,00,000 won in 18,000 won in 18,000,000 won in the case of the victim’s gold sheet, together with D police officers during the period from June 2, 2012.

2. Determination

A. The defendant, consistently from the investigative agency to this court, had no fact that he committed larceny in collaboration with D, and he did not have any fact between D and the place of crime at each time, place, and place specified in attached Table 1 and 3, and only received money from D after having requested D to sell damaged articles on bail by having requested D to sell them, and in relation to the crime specified in attached Table 2, it was a fact that D had stolen articles and sold them to the place of crime, and the defendant was in the vicinity of the place of crime.