beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor) against Defendant A and B is too unreasonable.
B. In the process of purchasing Aluminum chips from Defendant C, there was a circumstance to suspect that Defendant C was a stolen, and Defendant B with a more detailed care, such as checking the source of Aluminum chips and the process of carrying them, if it was known that the instant Alinum chips were the stolen goods, and thus, Defendant C’s work process and room could be recognized. However, the lower court acquitted Defendant C. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (Defendant C] 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged was a person who runs an intermediate wholesale business, such as Aluminum, in the trade name of “R” in Q of Gangseo-gu, Busan. On July 26, 2016, the Defendant purchased Aluminum chips, which are stolen goods B from “R” around July 26, 2016.
Since Aluminium chips are goods which are difficult to be distributed in large quantities on the physical surface, such as M. In such a case, the defendant must check the source of goods, the process of acquisition, etc. to the seller and confirm whether they are stolen goods, but he neglected this to purchase A about 807 kgg of Alinium chips owned by the victim who stolen from B.
In addition, from March 2, 2018 to March 2, 2018, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing the sum of 101,918km chips owned by the victim who stolen from B from 69 times in total, as shown in the attached list 3 of crimes committed in the judgment below.
2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court held that Defendant C neglected the duty of care required in the course of purchasing Aluminium chips.