The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The criminal defendant who has violated his/her duty of care in the course of purchasing the mobile phone of this case;

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. (1) The lower court: (a) although it is recognized that the Defendant received a written confirmation from E to the effect that the Defendant was a normal product without problem, the Defendant was aware that he was not the principal who opened the mobile phone; (b) and thus, (c) did not confirm whether the Defendant directly contacted the principal who opened the mobile phone and opened the mobile phone and sold it normally after opening, and (d) did not perform its duty of care to determine whether the Defendant was a stolen product.

The court determined that it could not be seen.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, such as the reasoning of the court below, i.e., ① the defendant's investigative agency, and the above "AU" need to be an enterprise which performs any work.

The question “I was known to the TM office that harms the loan and opens the handphone.”

“Is the name of the holder who sold the Handphones and received a short payment.”

“I may know it well to this end.”

It is known that the lender opens the Handphone and purchases the Handphone again.

“The purchase of Handphones to the nominal owner in the lending company is known to the suspect.”

“Presentations have the honor to think of it”.

“The E president has given a loan to the nominal owner and has purchased the same to the nominal owner once again.”

Haba도요.

The term “the President so speaks” does not mean that the President so speak.

The answer note "," and 2. The defendant purchased from E the amount equivalent to KRW 66 to KRW 4,3120,000 from the mobile phone of this case.