Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a major and overseas mobile phone exporter.

On July 2015, the Defendant purchased KRW 512,30,000 when gallon ju, among the cell phones owned by the victim G, which was stolen by F from the said D, at the “E” of the operation of the D in the Seocho-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seoul.

In such cases, a person engaged in the business of purchasing a heavy cell phone has a duty of care to make a purchase by checking the details of the acquisition of the mobile phone, the motive of the sale, the reason for the low price, etc., and entering the name and contact information of the seller in the account book, etc. in good faith.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not properly inquire about theft and loss, and did not enter the account books, such as the name and contact number of the seller, and the above D, the seller, was difficult to sell only a few mobile phones to the Defendant, but it did not confirm the circumstances of selling the mobile phone from 12 units at the time of the above mobile phone sales, but did not confirm the fact. While S5's heavy high-end market price was sold at approximately KRW 200,000,000, a half price of which was KRW 1,300,000, but did not confirm the reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the F or the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to attaching details of damaged articles);

1. Relevant Article 364 of the Criminal Act, Articles 362 (1) and 362 of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning the crime, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The main point of the argument is that D purchased a major mobile phone by the Defendant is the same kind of business, and the sales contract was concluded at the store, among which part of the mobile phone is used, “the mobile phone class system.”