The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On October 31, 2013, the lower court rendered a judgment of acquittal on the acquisition of stolen goods, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal to that effect, and the judgment of acquittal was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction except the above acquittal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant vehicle was a stolen, and thus, the Defendant had no intention to acquire stolen property.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake, the perception of stolen property in the crime of acquiring stolen property is not required to be a conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient to have dolusent recognition to the extent of gathering stolen property. Whether it is aware of the fact that it is a stolen property or not is a stolen property is bound to be recognized by taking into account the identity of the owner of stolen property, the nature of property, the transaction cost and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004, etc.). According to the records, the following facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant acquired a stolen vehicle and sold it to another person without following the lease agreement, and the lessee was well aware that the vehicle was owned by the leased company and was not offered or sold as security or was punished as a crime of acquiring stolen property without the consent of the leased company; and (b) the Defendant was also aware that the vehicle was sold from D to the Defendant at the time of the purchase of the foregoing vehicle under the name of the leased company or was sold without the consent of D company.