Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

except that the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a bank in the mutual name of “C” on the first floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building.

On November 5, 2012, the Defendant purchased one precious metal of KRW 75,000 at the market price which he stolen from D.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in sales business of precious metals, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining his/her personal information, etc., and by properly examining the details of acquisition of precious metals, the motive for sale, and the price suitable for the transaction price of precious metals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting such care, purchased precious metal of KRW 46,083,50 from D over eight times between November 5, 2012 and January 28, 2013, including the purchase of a net metal of KRW 75,00,00, by negligence, without neglecting the judgment on the stolen goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Application of the business registration certificate, each receipt, and the Acts and subordinate statutes to the high gold sales ledger;

1. Articles 364 and 362 of the Criminal Act, inclusive, with respect to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act suspended execution (the execution of this case shall be suspended, taking into account the special circumstances of the crime of this case, such as the fact that the defendant was punished by imprisonment without prison labor, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case again, even though the defendant had already been punished by a fine of two times, and that the defendant was found to be erroneous, and that D was professionally engaged in as if the defendant was a person operating the gold Exchange, unlike ordinary stolen acquisition, and that the defendant would have been expected to have paid