beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not immediately confirm the fact that the mobile phone number of the stolen seller, which the Defendant entered in the account book, was mistakenly stated, and that the address of E which is confirmed by the driver’s license, is extremely far away from the Defendant’s business place, the Defendant fulfilled the duty of due care required in relation to the confirmation of whether the stolen goods are stolen while purchasing the plate from E;
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On November 10, 2014, around 15:30, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence, which did not fulfill the duty of care to verify whether the goods were stolen, by purchasing at KRW 148.5km, 148.5km, owned by Samsung Electric Co., Ltd. and KRW 816,750, the Defendant purchased at KRW 52,00,00 from “D” in the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the defendant had been engaged in the first transaction with E, the defendant asked the source prior to purchase of the above stolen, and confirmed the personal information of E through the driver's license and stated it in the account book, such as E's resident number, address, and telephone number, and the date and time of sale (the resident number and address recorded in the me and the account book are the same as the personal information recorded in the E's driver's license, and the telephone number are different from the last number, but in light of this, it is reasonable to view that E intentionally notifies different numbers, or the defendant received it, and if so, it is reasonable to see that the defendant fulfilled his duty of care in the course of duty of care, and there is no special circumstance to suspect whether the above me, which E intended to sell, was the stolen goods.