The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants were negligent in failing to perform their duties of care in acquiring the stolen of this case, but the lower court acquitted all the charges of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A (1) around March 18, 2013, at the “E” page of the Defendant’s operation of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment shop located in 102 Dong 114 and 114, Defendant purchased one 14K gold stuff, which is the stolen stolen by F, and acquired the stolen goods by purchasing one 450,000 won by negligence in the course of business, even though he/she has a duty of care to verify whether the stolen goods are stolen, as well as whether he/she has the reason for acquisition, motive for sale, and demand the price suitable for the transaction rate.

(2) On March 20, 2013, the Defendant purchased 780,000 won from the above “E” bank, and acquired 24 K K gold bags, which were stolen by F, due to occupational negligence, even though the Defendant had a duty of care to verify whether the goods were stolen, such as the process of acquisition, motive for sale, and demand for the price suitable for the transaction market.

B. On March 22, 2013, Defendant B purchased one gold-half of the 24K K K-5 money, which was stolen by F, from the “H” bank operated by Defendant G located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, and acquired stolen goods by purchasing KRW 1,075,00 due to negligence in the course of business, even though he/she had a duty of care to verify whether he/she had the reason for acquisition, motive for sale, and demand the price suitable for the transaction price, etc.

3. The lower court’s judgment: (1) The Defendants verified the identity card from F at the time of their purchase of the instant precious metals and thereafter F in the purchase account book.