The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was a duty of care to confirm even the truth of the description of the source of the goods to the defendant who is the merchant of the transaction of Kamera, etc.

If a merchant who sells a camera, etc. receives a introduction from a person who operates visual points in Busan, and enters and confirms the seller's address, resident identification number, occupation, age, purchase price, etc. in order to verify the source of the article and the seller's status, and sells it to another account book, entered the purchaser's name, address, occupation, age, and sale price in the above account book and entered the purchaser's name, address, age, and sale price in a detailed way. The difference between the purchase price and the sale price is 7,000 principles and the original seller's purchase price is 7,000 principles and the seller's own name was flive to use it in the family's livelihood in the south of the month, it cannot be said that the seller has a duty of due care to verify the source of the camera.

Article 364 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 70No1387 delivered on June 3, 1970, Busan District Court Decision 70No1387 delivered on June 3, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant, based on legitimate evidence, purchased the Kameras of this case with introduction by non-indicted 1 who operates clocks in Busan, and the defendant's address as to the defendant 1 in the first instance court's stores upon the presentation of resident registration certificates to verify the source of the article and the identity of the defendant 1 in the first instance court. The defendant's address as to the defendant 1 in the first instance court's name is 1204- (number omitted), professional employees, age 32, and Kameras's characteristic, and 79,00 won, respectively, and it is difficult to find that there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant's purchase of Kameras of this case's Kameras of this case's Kameras of this case's 1204,000 won, and it is difficult to find that the defendant's Kameras of this case's 120,70,00,08, and7,00.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court