The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and by imprisonment for Defendant B.

[Judgment as to the Reasons for Appeal] Of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants, the part of mediation for the transfer of stolen goods among the facts charged in this case against the Defendants is attributable to the police investigation. The police who did not intend to purchase stolen goods cannot be the purchaser. Thus, the crime of mediation for the transfer of stolen goods under the premise of the existence of the purchaser cannot be established.

(1) The judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant's non-guilty punishment against the defendant was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, since the defendant B was of majority and majority.

(2) The sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, Defendant B with prison labor for a maximum of one year and ten months with prison labor for a maximum of one year) is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on the part of Defendants 1 in the crime of aiding and abetting stolen goods under Article 362(2) of the Criminal Act, the term “reconciliation” means to mediate or facilitate the acquisition, transfer, transportation, or storage of stolen goods by linking the stolen goods between the parties who intend to acquire, transfer, transport, or store stolen goods, while knowing the fact that the stolen goods are stolen, if the parties who intend to acquire, transfer, transport, or store stolen goods act as a broker or seek convenience in the acquisition, transfer, transport, or storage of stolen goods by linking each other, the crime of aiding and abetting stolen goods is established even in cases where a contract on the acquisition, transfer, transportation, or storage of stolen goods is not concluded

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1203, Apr. 23, 2009). Moreover, a naval investigation that, by means of deception, trick, etc., causes criminal intent to a person who does not have the original criminal intent, thereby inducing the investigation agency to arrest the criminal is illegal.

Therefore, the type and nature of the crime in question, the status and role of the inducer, the background and method of the inducer, the response of the inducer due to the inducer, the history and method of the punishment of the inducer, and the act of inducing.