The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, even though he knew of the fact that he is a bicycle wheelchairs as stated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “the bicycle wheelchairs of this case”). However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the Defendant’s criminal intent to acquire stolen goods and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

B. The suspended sentence of a penalty of KRW 300,000 against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (the suspended sentence of KRW 300,000) is too unhued and unjust.

2. Determination

A. On February 11, 2016, the Defendant, at around 18:00, acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 4.20,00,00, when recognizing that one of the 50,00 bicycles, which was owned by the victim D, was stolen by a non-personally injured person, at the event at the upper lake, lake, park shop, and dried 15,00,00,000, at around 18:0,000, the Defendant purchased the stolen goods at KRW 4.20,00,000.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence in its holding, found the market price of the bicycle wheelchairs of this case among the facts charged of this case as the market price of this case and found the Defendant guilty.

(c)

(1) In the crime of acquiring stolen goods, the perception of stolen goods is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the extent that it is suspected that the stolen goods might be stolen. In addition, the issue of whether the stolen goods have been aware of the fact should be recognized by taking into account the identity of the possessor of the stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004; 2015Do2007, Jun. 9, 2016, etc.). However, in light of the above legal principles, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed from the evidence and evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial, the Defendant was not guilty of having purchased the wheelchairs of this case from the person under whose name the bicycle of this case was not stolen.

Even if we can see, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the defendant uses the bicycle wheelchairs of this case.