The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. An ex officio determination prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment with the content that the market price of the stolen property of this case as stated in the facts constituting an offense at the trial. This court permitted the amendment, and the subject of the judgment was modified, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, insofar as it is found guilty of the modified facts charged as seen below.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still included in the scope of the party's trial, which will result in the following.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care in the process of obtaining the instant carmeras security from F, thereby not constituting a crime of acquisition of stolen property in the course of business.

B. In case where the pawnbroker intends to pawn the article, he has a duty of care to inquire into the address, name, occupation, age of the owner of the pawned article, the source and characteristic of the article, the motive to pawn the article, and whether or not the owner corresponding to his status is the owner of the article.

In the event that the pawned article has been neglected to identify the pawned article, even though it has gone through the process of verifying the pawned article, the fact alone cannot be exempted from the liability for the acquisition of stolen property in the course of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1413, Nov. 27, 1984; 84Do2732, 84Do429, Feb. 26, 1985); even though the pawnbroker has gone through the process of verifying the pawned article under Article 15 of the pawned article Business Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if he has paid more attention to the frequency of the pawned article, nature and type of the pawned article, and the identity of the pawned article, etc., even if he could have known that the pawned article is the stolen article, he/she is negligent in doing so and thus, he/she is not aware of the ownership of the stolen property.