logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.30 2016고정388
업무상과실장물취득
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the purchase of a heavy and portable phone or mobile phone screen.

On August 12, 2015, around 10:00, the Defendant purchased one gallon of S6 portable phone from B, which was owned by the Defendant, prior to the departure of the subway Hong-ro No. 160, Seoul Mapo-gu, 160.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the purchase of heavy mobile phones, has a duty of care to verify whether he is stolen by properly examining the personal information of B, the details of sales of mobile phones, and the details of sales of mobile phones, and whether the prices are suitable for transaction prices.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected the above care and acquired stolens by purchasing 350,000 won of the telephone phone by negligence while neglecting the judgment on stolens.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness B’s legal statement [the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care necessary for the purchase of mobile phones, and was unaware of the fact that he was stolen.]

The argument is asserted.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, whether the defendant is a Handphone to B who held the mobile phone in the process of purchasing the mobile phone.

It is recognized that the IMO number, which is the unique identification number of the mobile phone, is entered in the mobile phone loss or theft inquiry site, is recognized as a fact of making an inquiry about the loss or theft of the mobile phone.

However, according to the B's statement, it was very doubtful that B, a mobile phone holder, had removed the core chips using tools at the site where he sells the Handphone at the time, and made them early, there was a considerable doubt as to whether he/she is the true owner.

In addition, the defendant, as a mobile phone purchaser, is a minor student, whether the handphone of this case is a handphone whose normal termination is terminated or the handphone of the terminated condition.

arrow