The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. The Defendant A and C’s appeal shall be acquitted, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (i) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant J (hereinafter “J”) and R (hereinafter “R”) are deemed to have purchased and owned by the O himself; G (hereinafter “G”) and H (hereinafter “H”) were aware that the president purchased and owned it; and the said high art works offered a collateral loan for the said high art works without awareness of the fact that they are stolen; and the Defendant cannot be recognized as having committed occupational negligence in arranging the said high art works with no knowledge of the fact that they are stolen. In short, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge by misapprehending of legal principles or by misapprehending of legal principles.

Dob. The sentence of the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s instant G and H do not constitute stolen goods, the sales of which was entrusted by I to theO.

Even if G/H is a stolen, it cannot be said that there was an occupational negligence on the part of the defendant without knowing that the stolen was a stolen.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

C. Defendant C’s instant R is not a theft from K, but is delivered from K, and thus does not constitute stolen goods.

In addition, the defendant is merely a collection of art works as a hobby, and does not engage in the act of selling and selling high art works, etc., so the defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of storing goods in the course of his duties.

Even if the pertinent R constitutes stolen goods, and the Defendant’s lending of money with the Plaintiff’s offering of R as security constitutes “business” as referred to in the crime of storing stolen property, it cannot be said that the Defendant was negligent in not knowing that the Plaintiff was a stolen property.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A's.