1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. The grounds alleged by the Defendants in the trial of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Defendants in the first instance, and even if both the evidence submitted in the first instance and the purport of the entire pleadings in the first instance and the first instance trial are examined, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s negligence is larger than the Defendants’ negligence is justifiable.

Therefore, the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "self-help" in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance as "materials"; "Defendant E" in Part 5, 17, and 18 as "Defendant B"; and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case in which the following paragraph (2) is applied. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) 3rd 11 to 20 parallels are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant B acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence by neglecting his/her duty of care as to whether they are stolen goods or not, while having neglected to exercise his/her duty of care as to whether they are the stolen goods, by purchasing the instant goods from Defendant B from Defendant B, thereby acquiring stolen goods by purchasing them from Defendant B in the course of business. As such, Defendant B was guilty of facts constituting “the purchase cost of KRW 143,945,660 for KRW 102,818,330 for KRW 102,818,330 for the purchase cost of the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff, which was kept for business from May 30, 2014 to June 30, 2015”

“The Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 2 months in May of the Defendant’s imprisonment without prison labor for the conviction of the facts constituting the crime (Ulsan District Court 2016Da428), but the purchase cost of the materials sold by the Defendant B in the appellate court was deemed to be KRW 128,52,912 (the purchase cost based on the purchase price on the tax invoice issued in the name of the Defendant D among them is KRW 91,515,662), and the Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 1 year and 9 months in the imprisonment without prison labor for 4 months, and the above judgment is as it is.